Agenda packet, first session — Seal Beach City Council, October 27, 2025 (part 6 of 11)

VMT Impact Criteria
City criteria states that a project would result in a significant transportation impact if it would generate VMT that is at or above the City’s baseline average, with the baseline defined as the existing citywide average residential VMT per capita in the city. The residential VMT per capita is defined as the homebased trip production VMT per residential population.

VMT estimates were obtained from the OCTAM 5 travel demand forecasting model at the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level and at the citywide level (OCTA 2024). Per the Transportation Analysis Guidelines, since VMT is primarily a function of the location of a project, and the TAZ is the smallest geography in the model, a given project is assumed to have the same average VMT characteristics as neighboring development within the TAZ. However, in certain cases an opportunity site would not be consistent with the primary land uses that comprise the TAZ, such as when an opportunity site is within a TAZ that primarily consists of age-restricted housing. In those cases, the opportunity site is assumed to have the same average VMT characteristics as the nearest adjacent TAZs with unrestricted housing types. Refer to Appendix F for a tabular listing of the OCTAM TAZ VMT data used for this analysis.

If all opportunity sites do not exceed the citywide baseline average home-based VMT per capita, the Project would have a less than significant impact. However, if some or all opportunity sites exceed the citywide baseline average, the impact would be considered significant and mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate the Project’s significant VMT impact would be identified.

Table 3.15-2 shows that the baseline citywide average home-based VMT per capita and threshold of significance is 20.49 home-based VMT per capita.

I I I I
~
,--
I I _J
m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Transportation

3.15-13
Table 3.15-2: VMT Threshold of Significance
Land Use Type Units Citywide Average (Threshold of Significance) Residential Development Home-based VMT per capita 20.49 Source: OCTAM 5
Thresholds of Significance
In accordance with the current CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, the following questions were analyzed and evaluated to determine whether transportation impacts are significant:

Would the Project:

Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision(b)? 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:

Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access?
Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
Conflict with Program, Plan, Ordinance, or Policy
Impact TRANS-1 The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Impact Analysis
The Project does not include site specific designs showing driveway locations and, therefore, there are no specific details to review and assess direct impacts on the circulation system, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. As part of the standard development review process, the City would require all future development of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites and development within the Main Street Program area to prepare a review of the circulation system to ensure that development does not conflict with existing or planned facilities supporting these travel modes.

Any pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities proposed as part of the development of Housing Opportunity Site or within the Main Street Program area would be designed using the appropriate City design 1~ -
t---
L._ I I J
•
•
•
•
m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Transportation

3.15-14
standards. Any request to modify or develop new transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be subject to and designed in accordance with all applicable General Plan policies. For example, maintaining existing pedestrian facilities, providing pedestrian walkways between developments, schools, and public facilities, and giving priority to providing continuity and closing gaps in the bikeway and sidewalk network.

Furthermore, new development under the Project would need to comply with Transportation Impact Fees which fund the planning, design, development, and construction of transportation facilities reasonably necessary to serve new development. This fee is collected at the time of building permit.

As individual development proposals under the Housing Element Update would be evaluated individually for consistency with Orange County and City of Seal Beach plans including the Congestion Management Program, OCTA’s Orange County’s Bike + Ped Plan, the impact of implementing the Project would be less than significant.

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. Any pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities associated with the residential components of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would be required to comply with appropriate City design standards and consistency with applicable County and OCTA plans. 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.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact.

Vehicle Miles Traveled
Impact TRANS-2 The Project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision(b).

Impact Analysis
City criteria states that residential home-based VMT per capita constitutes a significant impact if it is higher than the baseline citywide average residential home-based VMT per capita. VMT estimates were obtained from OCTAM 5 for each of the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program (refer to Appendix F for a map illustrating the OCTAM 5 TAZ boundaries). Table 3.15-3 shows each Housing Opportunity Site and Main Street Program and the corresponding home-based VMT per capita compared to the citywide baseline average of 20.49 home-based VMT per capita. The VMT analysis shows that each of the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program could exceed the citywide average m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Transportation

3.15-15
home-based VMT per capita by up to approximately 30 percent. Therefore, the Project would have a significant impact before mitigation.

Table 3.15-3: VMT Analysis
Site
No. Site Name Total Units
Home-based
VMT
per Capita
Threshold of
Significance
Above or
Below
Threshold of
Significance
Difference
in Homebased VMT
per Capita
Percent
Reduction
to Mitigate
Impact
1 1780 Pacific Coast
Highway 5 25.12 20.49 Above 22.60% 18.43%
2 Leisure World 177 11.56 20.49 Below -43.58% --
3 Accurate Storage 83 20.79 20.49 Above 1.46% 1.44%
4 The Shops at
Rossmoor 552 24.98 20.49 Above 21.91% 17.97%
5 Old Ranch Town
Center 382 25.74 20.49 Above 25.62% 20.40%
6 Seal Beach Plaza 69 22.23 20.49 Above 8.49% 7.83%
7 Seal Beach Center 124 20.50 20.49 Above 0.05% 0.05%
8 99 Marina Drive 99 26.57 20.49 Above 29.67% 22.88%
Main
Street
Main Street
Program 115 26.57 20.49 Above 29.67% 22.88%
Total 1,606 22.67 20.49 Above 10.64% 9.62%
Mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s significant impact are outlined below. As required by Mitigation Measure TRANS-1, at the time of application for development, each site would be responsible for providing a quantitative VMT analysis consistent with the methodology in the City of Seal Beach Transportation Analysis Guidelines and would be responsible for identifying appropriate TDM measures to reduce VMT. TDM measures could include, but are not limited to the following measures for future projects that do not screen out of the VMT analysis (i.e., a small project or a project located in an area below the citywide average VMT per capita). Not all potential measures would be applicable at every site and the specific measures needed would be determined on a site-by-site basis:

Increase residential density.

Construct a mixed-use project.

Integrate affordable and below market rate housing into the Project.

Provide community-based travel planning, such a marketing programs aimed at residents of the project.

Provide pedestrian and bicyclists facilities.

Improve pedestrian, bicyclists, and transit accessibility. r I I I I I 7
,--- -
~
t--
r-
~
-
-
I -
!... I I I I I I J
•
•
•
•
•
•
m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Transportation

3.15-16
Limit residential parking supply and/or unbundle residential parking costs.

Provide carshare and/or bikeshare programs to residents.

Provide transit subsidies to residents.

Implementation of TDM measures can reduce a future project’s VMT. The expected reduction in VMT can be quantified using resources such as the Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities and Advancing Health and Equity (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association 2021), or other empirical evidence to be approved by the City. The CAPCOA Handbook provides detailed requirements, calculation steps, and limitations for assessing the VMT reduction effectiveness of each measure, including reductions from combinations of measures.

While some sites may meet the City’s screening criteria (i.e., small project), as identified above in Table

3.15-3, only one of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites or the Main Street Program (Housing Opportunity Site 2 – Leisure World) is expected to be below the citywide average. Because this is a program-level analysis, the impacts of individual projects developed under the Project are not the basis of this evaluation. Though implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 would be anticipated to reduce impacts, the effectiveness of the measures in reducing an individual project’s potential VMT impact to a less than significant level cannot be determined at the level of detail provided by a program document.

Therefore, based on the information available at this time, which does not include sufficient detail to determine specific mitigation measures and their effect on a site-by-site basis, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact even with implementation of mitigation measures. Specific mitigation measures would be determined for each site, if applicable, at the time of application for development.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially Significant Impact.

Mitigation Measures
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:
•
•
•
m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Transportation

3.15-17
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.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable.

3.15.4 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 transportation impacts is the SCAG region.

Table 3.15-4: Cumulative Projects Related to Transportation # Project Name Location Project
Characteristics Status Total Residential 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
Preparation of EIR 167
•
•
•
~
L --'
m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Transportation

3.15-18
specialty
restaurant
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
residential units
and 4,000 squarefeet of groundlevel 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 mixeduse project
consisting of 390
residential dwelling
units and 5,351
square feet of
commercial/retail
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 mixed-use
project consisting
of 281 residential
dwelling units,
3,100 square feet
of
commercial/retail
space in a building
Approved (By City
of Long Beach) 281
1~ I I I I I 7 ~ -
,-----
~ -
~ -
-
t--
L---~-I I I I I j
m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Transportation

3.15-19
with 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
Site
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
Development under the Project in combination with cumulative development identified in Table 3.15-4 could increase transportation impacts within the SCAG region.

Future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City or projects that may utilize City roads, like the Lampson Project, would increase housing development in previously developed areas and could result in transportation impacts. Future developments on the 1~ I I I I I 7 ~ -
~
~ -
-

L I I I I I J
m

3.15-20

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Transportation
Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program area facilitated by the Project would be subject to discretionary permits and require CEQA evaluation at the project-level. This means that each individual project would require separate discretionary approval and CEQA assessment, which would address potential cumulative transportation impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate.

OPR’s Technical Advisory states that “a finding of a less-than-significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact, and vice versa” (OPR 2018 page 6). Since the Project was found to have a significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation related to transportation, the Project would also have a cumulative significant and unavoidable transportation impact.

3.15.5 References
California Governor’s Office of Planning And Research. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2021.Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity.

City of Seal Beach. 2003. City of Seal Beach General Plan Circulation Element, December 2003. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/PlanningDevelopment/General-Plan. Accessed August 2023.

City of Seal Beach. 2020a. Resolution 7042.

City of Seal Beach. 2020b. Transportation Analysis Guidelines.

City of Seal Beach. 2022. City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element – Adopted February 7, 2022. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/6th%20Seal%20Beach%20Housing%20Elem ent_Adopted-compressed.pdf?ver=2022-02-10-091549-117. Accessed August 2023.

Orange County Transportation Authority. 2019. Orange County’s Bike + Ped Plan.

Orange County Transportation Authority. 2023. Local Tax Dollars at Work. https://www.octa.net/programs-projects/programs/oc-go-measure-m/about-oc-go/oc-go-2011- 2041. Accessed February 2024.

Orange County Transportation Authority. 2024.Orange County Transportation Analysis Model Version 5.

Southern California Association of Governments. 2024. Connect SoCal A Plan for Navigating to a Brighter Future.

Walk Score. 2024. City of Seal Beach, CA. Website:
https://www.walkscore.com/CA/Seal_Beach#:~:text=Seal%20Beach%20has%20an%20average %20Walk,Score%20of%2041%20with%2024%2C168%20residents. Accessed February 2024. m

3.16-1

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Tribal Cultural Resources

3.16 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section discusses the Project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. PRC Section 21074(a)(1) and (2) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objected with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe” that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources, or a resource that is determined to be a tribal cultural resource by a lead agency. The potential tribal cultural resources impacts associated with the Project are identified and discussed herein.

Information in this section is based on the Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by Stantec Consulting Services in April 2025, and included as Appendix D, and consultation efforts by the City with appropriate California Native American tribes. Where general information is applicable to both Section

3.4, Cultural Resources, and this section, the reader will be referred to Section 3.4, Cultural Resources, for additional detail.

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource and result in impacts to tribal cultural resources; however, with implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2, impacts would be less than significant.

The City, including the ORCC Specific Plan Project site, is located in an area of high sensitivity to precontact Native American resources. Additional study of the ORCC Specific Plan Project site is recommended to fully assess future project impacts on tribal cultural resources. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR.

3.16.1 Environmental Setting
Ethnography
Seal Beach is in the ancestral homeland of the Gabrielino (also known as Tongva). At the time of European contact, the Gabrielino inhabited the Los Angeles basin and the southern Channel Islands of Santa Catalina, San Nicolas, and San Clemente (Bean and Smith 1978).

The Gabrielino are descended from a Takic-speaking, Uto-Aztecan group that likely entered the Los Angeles Basin as recently as 1500 years before present (BP) from the southern Great Basin or interior California deserts. However, it is also possible that they migrated in successive waves over a longer period beginning around 4,000 years BP. It has been proposed that Uto-Aztecan speakers displaced the local occupants of the southern coast (Kroeber 1925:578–580; Moratto 1984:165), represented by the Hokan-speaking Diegueño to the south and the Chumash to the north. Much of the review of the Gabrielino presented here is based on William McCawley’s book, The First Angelinos (1996).

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Tribal Cultural Resources

3.16-2
The Gabrielino lived in an area that covered more than 1,500 square miles and included the watersheds of the Los Angeles River, San Gabriel River, Santa Ana River, and Rio Hondo, as well as the southern Channel Islands. There were at least 50 residential communities or villages, each with 50 to 150 individuals. Each community consisted of one or more lineages associated with a permanent territory.

Each territory was represented by a permanent central settlement, with associated hunting, fishing, gathering, and ritual areas. A typical settlement would have had a variety of structures used for daily living, recreation, and rituals. In the larger communities, the layout was more intricate. A ritualistic or sacred enclosure was surrounded by the residences of the chief and community leaders, which were in turn surrounded by the smaller homes of the rest of the community. Sweathouses, cemeteries, and clearings for dancing and playing were also common at larger settlements (McCawley 1996:32–33).

Gabrielino subsistence consisted of terrestrial and marine resources. These included mule deer, pronghorn, rabbits, small rodents, freshwater and marine fish and shellfish, sea mammals, snakes, lizards, insects, quail and mountain sheep. Botanical resources included native grass seeds, pine nuts, acorns, berries, and fresh greens and shoots. Food resources were managed by the chief, who oversaw food reserves, and families were known to store surplus resources to supplement their diet during times of resource stress. The Gabrielino were among the most materially wealthy groups in California, due to a complex trade network between the Tongva and neighboring groups (McCawley 1996:141).

Like many other Native American groups, the settlement of Europeans in California brought conflict and disease as the Spanish colonized the west coast, decimating the Native American population. Today, the Gabrielino continue their traditions in Southern California, with approximately 2,000 individuals.

Native American Consultation
On January 18, 2024, Stantec Consulting Services contacted NAHC in West Sacramento to conduct a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search of the Project area (Appendix D). The NAHC is the state’s official repository of sacred lands, sites, and resources recognized by California Native American tribes.

Andrew Green, NAHC Cultural Resources Analyst, responded via email on February 14, 2024, to Stantec Consulting Services’ search request that a review of the SLF was “positive” and recommended that the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians and the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation – Belardes be contacted for further information. The NAHC provided Stantec Consulting Services with a list of local tribes that may have additional information regarding tribal cultural resources in the Project and vicinity.

The Project is subject to tribal consultation requirements under CEQA (i.e., AB 52 and SB 18). On November 15, 2023, the City sent letters to six Native American tribal representatives. The letters advised the tribal representatives of the Project, offered consultation to discuss the Project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources, and solicited information regarding Native American resources in the immediate area.

Under PRC Section 21080.3.1, AB 52 consultation process is not required to be initiated unless a tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated to the geographic area where a project is located requests, in writing, for consultation. The tribe must respond, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the formal IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Tribal Cultural Resources

3.16-3
notification and request consultation. One response was received on November 29, 2023, from the tribal representative for the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The response indicated that the tribal representative concurs with the proposed General Plan Amendments and the Project; however, the tribal representative requested consultation for all future development projects within the City.

3.16.2 Regulatory Setting
Refer to Section 3.4, Cultural Resources, for additional federal and state regulations and local policies applicable to tribal cultural resources.

State
Assembly Bill 52 (PRC Section 21084.2)
AB 52, which became law on January 1, 2015, provides for consultation with California Native American tribes during the CEQA process, and equates significant impacts to “tribal cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts. PRC Section 21074 states that “tribal cultural resources” are:

Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe and are one of the following:
• Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR. • Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of PRC Section 5020.1.
• 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.

A “historical resource” (PRC Section 21084.1), a “unique archaeological resource” (PRC Section 21083.2(g)), or a “non-unique archaeological resource” (PRC Section 21083.2 (h)) may also be a tribal cultural resource if it is included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register.

The consultation provisions of the law require that a public agency consult with local Native American tribes that have requested placement on that agency’s notification list for CEQA projects. Within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete, or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency must notify tribes of the opportunity to consult on the project, should a tribe have previously requested to be on the agency’s notification list. California Native American tribes must be recognized by the NAHC as traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site and must have previously requested that the lead agency notify them of projects. Tribes have 30 days following notification of a project to request consultation with the lead agency.

The purpose of consultation is to inform the lead agency in its identification and determination of the significance of tribal cultural resources. If a project is determined to result in a significant impact on an IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Tribal Cultural Resources

3.16-4
identified tribal cultural resource, the consultation process must occur and conclude prior to adoption of a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration, or certification of an Environmental Impact Report (PRC Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3).

California Health and Safety Code and Public Resources Code Broad provisions for the protection of Native American cultural resources are contained in the HSC, Division 7, Part 2, Chapter 5 (Sections 8010 through 8030). Several provisions of the PRC also govern archaeological finds of human remains and associated objects. Procedures are detailed under PRC Section 5097.98 through 5097.996 for actions to be taken whenever Native American remains are discovered.

Section 7050.5 of the HSC states that any person who knowingly mutilates or disinters, wantonly disturbs, or willfully removes human remains in or from any location other than a dedicated cemetery without authority of law is guilty of a misdemeanor, except as provided in Section 5097.99 of the PRC. Any person removing human remains without authority of law or written permission of the person or persons having the right to control the remains under PRC Section 7100 has committed a public offense that is punishable by imprisonment. PRC Chapter 1.7, Section 5097.5/5097.9 (Stats. 1965, c. 1136, p. 2792), entitled Archaeological and Historical Sites, defines any unauthorized disturbance or removal of remains on public land as a misdemeanor.

Senate Bill 18
SB 18 (2004) requires cities and counties to consult with California Native American tribes during the local planning process for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Places. This allows Native American tribes the opportunity to provide input with respect to the possible preservation of, or the mitigation of impacts on, specified Native American places, features, and objects located within that jurisdiction. This consultation is required prior to amending or adopting any general plan or specific plan or designating land as open space. As noted above, the City contacted NAHC and local tribes in accordance with SB 18 requirements.

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 General Plan contains the current Housing Element Update, which was adopted in 2022 and revised in 2024. 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 tribal cultural resources are presented below:

Cultural Resources Element
Goal 1: Preserve and protect historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources. • Policy 1: Balance the benefits of development with the project’s potential impacts to existing cultural resources.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Tribal Cultural Resources

3.16-5
• Policy 3: Coordinate cultural resource programs and development project review with affected resource agencies and Native American representatives.
• Policy 5: Assess development proposals for potential impacts to significant archaeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Require a study conducted by a professional archaeologist for all development proposals located in areas known to be sensitive for cultural resources.

3.16.3 Environmental Impacts
This section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in significant tribal cultural resources impacts. When an impact is determined to be significant, mitigation measures are identified that would reduce or avoid that impact.

Methodology for Analysis
The following impact analysis is based on the Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the Project by Stantec Consulting Services in April 2025, which is included as Appendix D, and the results from the tribal consultation. The Cultural Resources Assessment included a records search at the regional Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, literature review, and search of the SLF from NAHC.

Threshold 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 tribal cultural resources impacts are significant.

Would the Project:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined by 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 a California Native American tribe, and that is:
o 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
o 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.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Tribal Cultural Resources

3.16-6
Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact TCR-1 The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code 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:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code 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 Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Impact Analysis
In accordance with AB 52 and SB 18 requirements, the City sent invitation letters to representatives of the Native American tribal contacts on November 15, 2023, formally inviting tribes to consult with the City on the Housing Element Update and Zone Code Update. The intent of the tribal consultations is to provide an opportunity for interested Native American contacts to work together with the City during the project planning process to identify and protect tribal cultural resources. The City sent letters to six Native American tribal representatives and one response letter was received from the following tribe:
• Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The tribe sent a letter to the City on November 29, 2023, stating that they concur with the proposed General Plan Amendments and requests that the Tribal government be consulted on future development projects within the City.

As all of the Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area are currently developed or have been developed in the past with uses that have previously disturbed the site, these sites are not anticipated to have undiscovered sensitive tribal resources. However, as the NAHC SLF search resulted in a positive result for tribal cultural resources and the City is located in an area of high sensitivity for precontact Native American resources, future development projects under the Project could require ground-disturbing activities in portions of the City that may have sensitive tribal cultural resources.

Grading and construction activities of undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires more intensive soil excavation than needed for the existing development could potentially cause disturbance to tribal cultural resources by potentially unearthing previously unknown/unrecorded tribal cultural resources.

As detailed in Section 3.4, Cultural Resources, and identified in the Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the Project, three archaeological cultural resources have been identified at, or in the vicinity of, one of the Housing Opportunity Sites: P-30-000143, P-30-000264, and P-30-001546. The status of IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Tribal Cultural Resources

3.16-7
these three archaeological cultural resources is unknown at this time, including their integrity (i.e., whether these sites contain intact subsurface archaeological deposits) and their eligibility for listing in either the CRHR or NRHP. At least two of these sites have reported Native American human remains, and regardless of these sites’ status as historical resources or archaeological resources under CEQA, the presence of such remains may be tribal cultural resources. As requested by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation during the AB 52 consultation process, future development projects located on one of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure TCR-1 which requires consultation with identified Native American tribal groups prior to approval of the proposed future development project. Additionally, as the NAHC SLF search identified a positive result, future development projects would be required to implement Mitigation Measure TCR-2 which outlines procedures in the event of inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources. Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2 require that before any development or redevelopment activities can occur, the site must be analyzed for conformance with the applicable local, state, and federal requirements, and must comply with the requirements of CEQA. The City will work with the tribe to address any artifacts unearthed during construction in accordance with the mitigation measures. Working directly with the tribe and implementation of mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts and impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially Significant Impact.

Mitigation Measures
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.

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 IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Tribal Cultural Resources

3.16-8
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.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

3.16.4 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)).

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. As identified in Table 3.0-2 in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis, the geographic scope of impacts for tribal cultural resources is limited to the specific project site. The potential for impacts to occur to known and unknown tribal cultural resources is site-specific and cannot combine with cumulative projects to produce a larger impact and therefore, tribal cultural resources do not contribute to cumulative impacts. As such, a table of related projects that contribute to cumulative tribal cultural resources impacts is not included within this section. However, a programmatic analysis of cumulative tribal cultural resources impacts is provided below.

Based on tribal consultation, research, and the pre-contact context, the area within this Project area of analysis may contain tribal cultural resources that have not been documented or recorded. Additionally, the City is identified to be located in an area of high sensitivity to precontact Native American resources.

Therefore, this analysis conservatively assumes that the land within cumulative development areas have the potential to contain tribal cultural resources that are not yet known.

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]).

Impacts to tribal cultural resources are site-specific and development on cumulative project sites could result in impacts as the cumulative developments are located within the same geographic context for potential tribal cultural resources. The Project and other developments in the City and surrounding communities have the potential to impact tribal cultural resources. However, as identified above, Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level related to tribal cultural resources. Unless exempt, each cumulative project would require separate IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Tribal Cultural Resources

3.16-9
discretionary approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential tribal cultural resources impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. Cumulative developments would be anticipated to require and implement mitigation measures similar to those identified for the Project to reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to tribal cultural resources.

3.16.5 References
Bean, Lowell John, and Charles R. Smith. 1978. Gabrielino. In R. Heizer ed., Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California, pp. 538–549. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Kroeber, A.L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Washington D.C.

Moratto, Michael J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, San Diego.

McCawley, William. 1996. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press and Ballena Press, Banning and Novato, California.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Utilities and Service Systems

3.17-1

3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for utilities and service systems. It also describes existing conditions and potential impacts related to utilities and service systems that would result from implementation of the Project, and mitigation for potentially significant impacts, where feasible.

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
The Project could require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facility, the construction or relation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1, impacts would be less than significant.

The Project has sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. The impact would be less than significant.

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. The impact would be less than significant.

The residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project was considered within the review of the water treatment and water supply, stormwater, and wastewater capacity of this Project.

Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR.

3.17.1 Environmental Setting
Water Supply
The City and Golden State Water Company GSWC are retail water suppliers that provide water for their customers using the imported water supply obtained from its regional wholesaler, MWDOC and local groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). The City provides water to most of the City with the exception of the Shops at Rossmoor, which is served by an investor-owned water utility, the GSWC. Further development at Housing Opportunity Site 4 - The Shops at Rossmoor would be expected to be served by GSWC. Review of the GSWC’s West Orange Service Area 2020 UWMP demonstrates that the GSWC has an intertie with the City and receives a small portion of water from the City. In 2020, the GSWC received 34 AFY from the City (GSWC 2021). The City’s and GSWC’s 2020 UWMP indicate that both water retailers can provide sufficient water through additional purchases from MWDOC or groundwater sources managed by OCWD.

The City’s Water Division operates three active groundwater wells, an active service connection with MWDOC via the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB), emergency interconnections with other IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Utilities and Service Systems

3.17-2
utilities, two reservoirs with a total storage capacity of seven million gallons (MG), two booster stations, four production wells, approximately 680 hydrants and manages 74.8-mile water mains system with approximately 5,300 service connections. Water use within the City’s service area has been relatively stable in the past decade with an annual average of 3,482 AF for potable use. In Fiscal Year 2019-20, the City’s water use was 3,273 AF of potable water (groundwater and imported). In Fiscal Year 2019-20, the City relied on 65 percent groundwater and 35 percent imported water. There is currently no recycled water available for use within the City’s service area (City of Seal Beach 2021).

The GSWC West Orange Services Area covers approximately 15.4 square miles in western Orange County and delivers potable water to approximately 114,000 customers including the Cities of Cyprus, Stanton, Los Alamitos, and small portions to the Cities of Seal Beach, Garden Grove, and La Palma and some adjacent unincorporated county customers. GSWC West Oranges Service Area has 27,643 water service connections (GSWC 2021).

Per GSWC’s 2020 UWMP, the West Orange Service Area’s system is comprised of fourteen active groundwater wells with a combined capacity of 11,850 gallons per minute, owned and operated by GSWC. These well sites are disinfected locally with 12.5 percent sodium-hypochlorite injection solution.

The groundwater is blended with water purchased from MWDOC. The West Orange Service Area’s system has four emergency interconnections to allow sharing of supplies during short term emergencies or planned shutdowns. These interconnections include connections to the City of Garden Grove, the City of Seal Beach as mentioned previously, the City of Buena Park, and GWSC’s Artesia System (GSWC 2021).

Water Conservation
Retail water suppliers are required to comply with the requirements of Water Conservation Act of 2009, also known as SB X7-7 (Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session), which was signed into law in 2010 and requires the State of California to reduce urban water use by 20 percent by 2020 from a 2013 baseline.

The City met its 2020 water use target and is in compliance with SB X7-7; the actual 2020 consumption was 95 gallons per capita per day (GPCD), which is below its 2020 target of 142 GPCD (City of Seal Beach 2021).

GSWC met its 2020 established water use target of 141 GPCD by achieving 111 GPCD and is also in compliance with SB X7-7 (GSWC 2021).

Water Code Section 10632 requires that every urban water supplier that serves more than 3,000 AF per year or have more than 3,000 connections prepared and adopt a standalone Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) as part of its UWMP. The City’s 2020 UWMP as well as GSWC’s 2020 UWMP both include their respective WSCP which provide real-time water supply availability assessment and structured steps designed to respond to actual conditions.

The WSCP serves as an operating manual that both the City and GSWC will use to prevent catastrophic service disruptions through proactive, rather than reactive, mitigation of water shortages. The WSCP IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Utilities and Service Systems

3.17-3
contains processes and procedures documented in the WSCP, which are given legal authority through the Water Shortage Contingency Response Ordinance. The WSCPs have prescriptive elements, including an analysis of water supply reliability; the drought shortage actions for each of the six standard water shortage levels, that correspond to water shortage percentages ranging from 10 percent to greater than 50 percent; an estimate of potential to close supply gap for each measure; protocols and procedures to communicate identified actions for any current or predicted water shortage conditions; procedures for an annual water supply and demand assessment; monitoring and reporting requirements to determine customer compliance; and reevaluation and improvement procedures for evaluating the WSCP (City of Seal Beach 2021).

Regarding the City of Seal Beach, when shortage conditions arise, the City’s governing body, its staff, and the public can easily identify and efficiently implement pre-determined steps to mitigate a water shortage to the level appropriate to the degree of water shortfall anticipated.

For GSWC, the WSCP is required to identify locally appropriate shortage response actions that align with the defined shortage stages and include demand reduction actions, supply augmentation actions, system operational changes, and mandatory prohibitions against specific water use practices that are in addition to state-mandated prohibitions and appropriate to the local conditions. For each response action the WSCP is to provide an estimate of the extent to which the gap between supplies and demand will be reduced by implementation of the action (GSWC 2021).

Water Demands and Project Growth to 2045
According to the City’s UWMP, water use within the City’s service area has been relatively stable in the past decade with an annual average of 3,482 AF of potable use. A stable trend is expected in the future as the City is essentially built-out and is projected to add minimum land use and small population increases (expected to increase by only 1.5 percent over the 25-year period from 2020 to 2045).

Additionally, water conservation efforts in the City kept per capita water use down (City of Seal Beach 2021).

In Fiscal Year 2019-2020, the City’s water use was 3,273 AF of potable water. The City’s UWMP states that water demand is likely to decrease 3 percent between 2020 to 2025; however, in the long term, water demand is projected to increase 4.1 percent from 2025 through 2045. The projected water use for 2045 is estimated to be 3,306 AF (City of Seal Beach 2021).

Per GSWC’s 2020 UWMP, GSWC West Orange Service Area’s projected population is based on the 2020 estimated population and projected growth from SCAG. The projected growth rate for the City of Cyprus was used to project the growth rate for GSWC’s West Orange Service Area through 2045. Water demand is expected to grow due to the growth in population and is projected to be 15,759 AF in 2045 (GSWC 2021).

Wastewater
The City does not own or operate wastewater treatment facilities but owns and operates the wastewater collection system in its service area that sends all wastewater from collection pipes to OC San trunk pipes IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Utilities and Service Systems

3.17-4
to transport wastewater for treatment and disposal. The sewer collection system owned by the City encompasses about 1,705 acres, includes approximately 34 miles of sewer main, and serves about 5,000 customers. The City collects wastewater from approximately 90 percent of the City, including Leisure World but excluding Bixby Ranch, The Shops at Rossmoor, and the Surfside residential community.

Housing Opportunity Site 2 - Leisure World would receive wastewater collection services from the City of Seal Beach with a short sewer pipe connected to the OC San collection system. The Bixby Ranch and the existing Shops at Rossmoor are served by the Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area Sewer District, and Surfside residential community is served by the Sunset Beach Sanitary District (City of Seal Beach 2018).

Housing Opportunity Site 4 - The Shops at Rossmoor, would likely receive wastewater services from the Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area Sewer District. Similar to the City, wastewater is collected by the Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area Sewer District and ultimately flows to OC San for treatment and disposal (Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area Sewer District 2001).

The wastewater collected in the City’s system is conveyed to OC San’s extensive system of gravity flow sewers, pump stations, and pressurized sewers. Ultimately, the wastewater is treated at OC San treatment plants in Fountain Valley (Plant No. 1) and Huntington Beach (Plant No. 2). Plant No. 1 has a total rated primary capacity of 108 million gallons per day (MGD) and a secondary treatment capacity of 80 MGD. Plant No. 2 has a rated primary capacity of 168 MGD and secondary treatment capacity of 90 MGD. Both plants share a common ocean outfall, but Plant No. 1 currently provides all its secondary treated wastewater to OCWD’s Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) for beneficial reuse. The 120-inch diameter ocean outfall extends 4 miles off the coast of Huntington Beach. A 78-inch diameter emergency outfall also extends 1.3 miles off the coast. In 2020, 2,520 AF of wastewater was collected from the City (City of Seal Beach 2021).

Storm and Drainage
The City has two drainage systems – the sewer and the storm drains. Sewers carry waste to a sewage treatment plant where the water is cleaned and then reused or deposited into the ocean away from beaches. The storm drain system was designed to solely prevent flooding of City streets by carrying excess rainwater out to the ocean.

Energy and Natural Gas
Southern California Gas Company is the gas provider and Southern California Edison is the electricity provider for the City.

Solid Waste
Republic Services provides solid waste (trash) services for the City except for Leisure World which is served by Athens Services.

Telecommunications
A variety of private telecommunications systems are offered within Seal Beach, including Spectrum, Verizon, and Frontier.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Utilities and Service Systems

3.17-5

3.17.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Water Act
Section 304 of the CWA establishes primary drinking water standards and requires states to ensure that potable water retailed to the public meets these standards. State primary and secondary drinking water standards are promulgated in CCR Title 22, Sections 64431–64501. Secondary drinking water standards incorporate non-health risk factors including taste, odor, and appearance. The NPDES regulates the discharge of drainage to surface waters. Federal NPDES regulations are administered by the SWRCB and through the RWQCB. The City is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB.

State
Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The State of California established the SWRCB, which oversees the nine RWQCBs, through PorterCologne. Through the enforcement of Porter Cologne, the SWRCB determines the beneficial uses of the waters (surface and groundwater) of the state, establishes narrative and/or numerical water quality standards, and initiates policies relating to water quality. The SWRCB and, more specifically, the RWQCB, are authorized to prescribe Waste Discharge Requirements for the discharge of waste, which may impact the waters of the state. Furthermore, the development of water quality control plans, or Basin Plans, is required by Porter-Cologne to protect water quality. The SWRCB issues both general construction permits and individual permits under the auspices of the federal NPDES program.

Urban Water Management Planning Act
In 1983, the California Legislature enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Water Code Sections 10610–10656). The Urban Water Management Planning Act requires that every urban water supplier that provides water to 3,000 or more customers, or that provides over 3,000 AFY shall prepare and adopt an UWMP. Water suppliers are required to prepare a UWMP within a year of becoming an urban water supplier and update the plan at least once every five years. The Urban Water Management Planning Act also specifies the content that is to be included in an UWMP. It is the intention of the legislature to permit levels of water management planning commensurate with the number of customers served and the volume of water supplied. The Urban Water Management Planning Act states that urban water suppliers should make every effort to ensure the appropriate level of reliability in their water service sufficient to meet the needs of its various categories of customers during normal, dry, and multiple-dry years. The Urban Water Management Planning Act also states that the management of urban water demands, and the efficient use of water shall be actively pursued to protect both the people of the state and their water resources. The City’s 2020 UWMP was adopted in June 2021.

Making Conservation a California Way of Life Regulation In 2018, the state legislature passed AB 1668 and SB 606, the Making Conservation a California Way of Life Regulation, which took effect in January 2025. The regulation directs the State Water Board to IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Utilities and Service Systems

3.17-6
establish individualized efficiency goals and performance measures for each Urban Retail Water Supplier.

The goals are based on the supplier’s service area and give suppliers flexibility to implement locally appropriate solutions. The goal of this regulation is to reduce urban water use by over 400,000 AF by 2030.

California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939 and AB 341) To minimize the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of by transformation (i.e., recycling) and land disposal, the Legislature passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), effective January 1990. According to AB 939, all cities and counties are required to divert 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill facilities by January 1, 1995, and 50 percent by January 1, 2000. Solid waste plans are required to explain how each city’s AB 939 plan will be integrated within its respective county plan. They must promote (in order of priority) source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe transformation and land disposal. In 2010, the state legislature passed AB 341 (Chesbro) which set a statewide recycling goal of 75 percent by 2020, which is anticipated to be achieved through source reduction, recycling, and continued diversion of materials such as organic wastes.

California Senate Bill 1383
SB 1383 mandates a significant reduction in organic waste sent to landfills, aiming to reduce methane emissions from landfills, a major source of greenhouse gases. Beginning is 2022 SB 1383 requires reduction of organic waste within landfills. The law sets the following targets for 2025: (1) 75 percent less organic waste sent to landfills; and (2) 20 percent of unsold, still-edible food sent to food recovery organizations.

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 General Plan contains the current Housing Element Update, which was adopted in 2022 and revised in 2024. 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 utilities and service systems are presented below:

Housing Element Update
Goal 1: Facilitate the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels to meet the existing and future needs of residents.
• Policy 1f: Improve all residential environments through the provision of adequate public facilities and services, including streets and parks, as well as water, sewer, and drainage systems.

Goal 2: Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate-income households.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Utilities and Service Systems

3.17-7
• Policy 2d: Encourage construction of low- and moderate-income housing on sites that are:
o located with convenient access to schools, parks, public transportation, shopping facilities, and employment opportunities;
o adequately served by public utilities;
o adequately served by police and fire protection;
o minimally impacted by noise, flooding, or other environmental constraints; and o outside of areas of concentrated lower-income households.

City of Seal Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 9.37, Water Shortage Contingency Response, of the City’s Municipal Code outlines permanent mandatory water conservation measures that include baseline conservation measures to be taken in times of normal water supply conditions. These permanent mandatory water conservation measures include, but are not limited to, limits on watering hours, control of runoff water, limits on watering duration, and guidelines for washing vehicles and equipment.

3.17.3 Environmental Impacts
This section analyzes the Project’s potential to result in significant utilities and service systems impacts.

When an impact is determined to be significant, mitigation measures are identified that would reduce or avoid impacts.

Methodology for Analysis
The following analysis is based on a review of documents pertaining to the Project site, including the General Plan, UWMP, the WSA prepared for the Project by Stantec Consulting Services in April 2025 (Appendix G), and Section 2.0, Project Description, of this EIR. The following impact discussions consider the impacts of the Project related to utilities and service systems in the City.

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 utilities and service system impacts are significant.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Utilities and Service Systems

3.17-8
Would the Project:
• Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? • Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
• Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
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:
• Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or other impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? • Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statues and regulations related to solid waste?
Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
Relocation or Construction of Utility Facilities
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.

Impact Analysis
The Project does not propose any development. However, the Project would identify a series of implementing actions, including rezoning of Housing Opportunity Sites, establishment of a new zoning designation, and implementation of the Main Steet Program, to increase housing development capacity within the City that would induce population growth. Therefore, increased demand for utilities and facilities would occur incrementally as future developments are proposed on the eight Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area. Future developments facilitated by the Project would occur and may be subject to discretionary permits as market conditions allow and at the discretion of the individual property owners. The majority of the City’s developable area is already developed, and nearly all the Housing Opportunity Sites and the area within the Main Street Program are already developed with some sort of active use and are served by existing utilities. In general, some future developments within the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area would require minor tie-ins, or the construction IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Utilities and Service Systems

3.17-9
of short utility lines or piping, to utilities that are already present in adjacent roadways, the construction of which would not result in significant environmental impacts. Development on Housing Opportunity Site 8 – 99 Marina Drive may require upsizing of water mains to mitigate fire flow deficiencies (Personal Communication, April 30, 2025). Future development projects facilitated by the Project would be required to undergo site-specific utilities design analysis when proposed.

Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR.

Water Facilities
The City owns and maintains the water distribution system that provides water service to the City’s residents and businesses, excluding The Shops at Rossmoor that receives water service from the GSWC. As discussed above, future development projects facilitated by the Project would be required to undergo environmental review when proposed and project applicants would be required to ensure that the City has sufficient capacity to provide water as specific development projects are proposed. Future developments under the Project would also be required to comply with the CALGreen Code, which requires that new construction use high-efficiency plumbing fixtures, such as high-efficiency toilets, urinals, showerheads, and faucet fixtures. For outdoor water use, the CALGreen Code requires that irrigation controllers be weather- or soil moisture–based and automatically account for rainfall or be attached to a rainfall sensor. Additionally, future development projects would be required to comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Implementation of water conservation and efficiency measures would minimize the potable water demand generated and lessen the need for capacity or other improvements to the water system. Future developments would be expected to connect to the City’s water supply system and GSWC’s West Orange system (Housing Opportunity Site 4 – The Shops at Rossmoor) and would provide infrastructure/pipelines that are adequately sized to accommodate its potable water and fire flow demands.

Future development of Housing Opportunity Site 8 – 99 Marina Drive, may result in deficiencies of the existing water infrastructure to deliver adequate fire flow to the site (Personal Communication, April 30, 2025). During site development, a supplemental evaluation shall be conducted to verify the fire flow deficiencies are valid.

All future development 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 future development project would require improvements to the water facilities to meet the state, County, IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Utilities and Service Systems

3.17-10
and local standards and requirements to serve the future development project site location. As required by Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 described below, if improvements, such as upsizing distribution mains or constructing new public distribution mains, are needed due to deficiencies to meet state, County, and local standards and requirements at the future development project site location, the proposed future development project shall 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.

Wastewater Treatment and Collections System
The City does not own or operate wastewater treatment facilities but owns and operates the wastewater collection system in its service area that sends all wastewater to OC San for treatment and disposal.

Housing Opportunity Site 4 – The Shops at Rossmoor would receive wastewater services from Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area Sewer District which collects wastewater then sends it to OC San and Housing Opportunity Site 2 – Leisure World would receive wastewater collection services from the City of Seal Beach with a short sewer pipe connected to the OC San collection system. All other Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program would receive wastewater collection services from the City. OC San had an estimated average daily flow of 192 MGD during 2023-2024. As discussed under Impact UTIL-3 the Project would have a potential increase of 256,960 gpd of wastewater which would represent a 0.13 percent increase from existing flows. As the Project would result in a less than one percent increase from existing wastewater flows treated at OC San’s two wastewater treatment facilities, wastewater generated by buildout of the Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program area would be anticipated to be served by OC San’s existing treatment capacity. Additionally, OC San levies connection fees for new or expanded sewer connections, including those to new development.

These connection fees help fund the costs associated with providing wastewater facility capacity to both new users requiring new connections, as well as existing users requiring additional capacity.

Regardless, future development projects facilitated by the Project would be required to undergo sitespecific analysis when proposed. The City will also ensure that there is adequate sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities at the time specific development projects are proposed. Future developments facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with the CALGreen Code, which requires that new construction use high-efficiency plumbing fixtures, such as high-efficiency toilets, urinals, showerheads, and faucet fixtures. Implementation of water conservation and efficiency measures would reduce the wastewater generated by the future development projects. Future developments would be expected to connect to existing wastewater infrastructure in areas and would provide infrastructure/pipelines that are adequately sized to accommodate its demands or upsize the sewer main to meet the City’s capacity requirements.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Utilities and Service Systems

3.17-11
Future development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project may result in capacity deficiencies due to the existing wastewater infrastructure’s ability to adequately serve the project (Personal Communication, April 30, 2025). Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. 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 component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would have a potential increase of 26,720 gpd of wastewater. Therefore, the total 1,773 units from the Project and the ORCC Specific Plan Project would have a total potential increase of 0.14 percent increase from the existing flows of OC San during 2023- 2024. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR.

Stormwater Drainage
The City has two drainage systems – the sewer and the storm drains. Sewers carry waste to a sewage treatment plant where the water is cleaned and then reused or deposited into the ocean away from beaches. The storm drain system was designed to solely prevent flooding of City streets by carrying excess rainwater out to the ocean. The existing stormwater drainage facilities serving the City include City facilities as well as USACE/Los Angeles County Flood Control District facilities, Orange County Flood Control District facilities, and private facilities (City of Seal Beach 2008).

The Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program are primarily located in developed areas.

Housing Opportunity Site 8 – 99 Marina Drive is undeveloped and contains pervious surfaces that may increase stormwater flows. However, future development projects facilitated by the Project would be required to undergo site-specific analysis when proposed. This process would ensure that impacts on the storm drainage system due to new development are considered. Future developments facilitated by the Project would be subject to Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 10.15.065, Storm Drainage, which require storm drainage systems to be designed with adequate capacity to accommodate ultimate development of the drainage area and require all proposed storm drainage facilities plans be approved by the City Engineer. All stormwater infrastructure, including on and offsite improvements, would connect to the City’s existing storm water infrastructure and would be designed to handle the anticipated stormwater runoff. Due to the City’s stormwater regulations, the pre- and post- project drainage would have to be accommodated onsite so the project would not require construction of new storm water treatment and conveyance facilities.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Utilities and Service Systems

3.17-12
Energy and Natural Gas
Southern California Gas Company is the gas provider and Southern California Edison is the electricity provider for the City. The Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area are located in a developed area that is situated near existing electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. Individual development would be required to comply with CALGreen and construct energy efficient structures. The Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas to over 21.1 million consumers and Southern California provides electricity to over 15 million customers. The addition of the Project’s dwelling units would represent a negligible increase in customers to both utility retailers (Southern California Gas Company 2025, Southern California Edison 2025). Moreover, the majority of natural gas demand within the state comes from non-residential sources such as commercial, industrial, and transportation (California Gas and Electric Utilities 2024, CEC 2025). Thus, future developments would not be expected to require the construction or expansion of electric power and natural gas facilities.

Telecommunications
Seal Beach is served by a variety of private telecommunication providers, including Spectrum, Verizon, and Frontier. The Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area are in a developed area that is situated near existing cable, phone, and fiber optic lines. The addition of 1,606 dwelling units from the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program in a developed area serviced by existing telecommunication providers would not be anticipated to require the construction or expansion of telecommunication facilities.

Conclusion
Overall, future development construction and operation would result in increased water, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications demands, and wastewater generation. Any construction and operational effects on utilities and service systems from future development in accordance with the Project would be subject to compliance with all federal, state, and local requirements for minimizing construction and operational impacts to utilities, including water and wastewater system capacities, solid waste reduction goals, and supplies of electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications.

All future developments facilitated by the Project would be required to meet the mandatory requirements under the City’s various programs aimed at ensuring adequate supplies and service infrastructure are IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Utilities and Service Systems

3.17-13
available to serve the development. Implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 and adherence to these programs, requirements, and regulations would minimize impacts to utilities and service systems to less than significant levels.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially Significant Impact.

Mitigation Measures
MM 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.
• 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.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Utilities and Service Systems

3.17-14
Water Supply
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.

Impact Analysis
According to the 2020 UWMPs for the City of Seal Beach and for GSWC West Orange Service Area, the projected supplies available to each retailer during any normal, single dry, or multiple consecutive dry water years out to 2045 would be adequate to meet the demands; however, these demands did not account for the increased water demand resulting from the Project. Therefore, the Project requires preparation of a WSA to determine if sufficient water supplies would be available to serve buildout of the Project.

A WSA was prepared for the Project by Stantec Consulting Services in April 2025 (Appendix G). As identified in the WSA, the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area have existing structures that have existing water uses. These existing water demands were a part of the City’s and GSWC’s demand analysis in their respective 2020 UWMPs and therefore, the WSA calculated the additional demand that would result at these sites from buildout of the Project. The Housing Element Update plans for up to 1,339 new dwelling units in the City 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 below the maximum allowable density. For the purposes of analysis contained in this EIR, a more intense level of development (maximum buildout) was analyzed 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 as well as the analysis contained in the WSA assumed maximum buildout under the Project. The WSA determined that the maximum buildout scenario of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program would result in an additional water demand of 361,350 gpd or 405 AFY. This includes 139 AFY for Housing Opportunity Site 4 – The Shops at Rossmoor served by GSWC, and 266 AFY for the remaining seven Housing Opportunity Sites served by the City of Seal Beach. During dry years the demands area expected to increase to a total of 435 AFY, which includes 153 AFY for Housing Opportunity Site 4 – The Shops at Rossmoor, and 282 AFY for the remaining Housing Opportunity Sites.

The WSA compared the percentage increase in water demand over a 25-year period due to the Project for a normal year and the highest demand from the five-year period of multiple dry years as a worst-case scenario for portions of the Project served by the City of Seal Beach and GSWC.

See Table 3.17-1 and Table 3.17-2 below for a comparison of each of the 2020 UWMP’s projected supply and demand, as well as projected demand with the additional Project demand during normal years.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Utilities and Service Systems

3.17-15
Table 3.17-1: City’s Normal Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison Water Sources 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Projected Supply 2020 UWMP
(AFY) 3,175 3,368 3,342 3,317 3,306
Projected Demand 2020 UWMP
(AFY) 3,175 3,368 3,342 3,317 3,306
Projected Demand +Additional
Project Demand (AFY) minus
Housing Opportunity Site 4
3,175 3,634 3,608 3,583 3,572
Demand Increase 0% 8% 8% 8% 8%
Additional Supply Required 0 266 266 266 266
Table 3.17-2: GSWC’s Normal Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison Water Sources 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Projected Supply 2020 UWMP
(AFY) 14,137 14,527 14,926 15,337 15,759
Projected Demand 2020 UWMP
(AFY) 14,137 14,527 14,926 15,337 15,759
Projected Demand + Housing
Opportunity Site 4 Additional Project
Demand (AFY)
14,137 14,666 15,065 15,476 15,898
Demand Increase 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Additional Supply Required 0 139 139 139 139
As shown in the tables above, an additional supply of 266 AFY and 139 AFY would be required during normal years to serve the projected City and GSWC’s demand with the additional Project demand, respectively.

See Table 3.17-3 and Table 3.17-4 for a comparison of supply versus demand for the most severe year within the multiply dry year period for the City and for GSWC, respectively. Like the City’s 2020 UWMP, the WSA assumed the same percentage increase (6 percent) above average supply for the additional water demand from the Project during dry years. As such, using the 6 percent increase from 266 AF equals 282 AF of additional supply required for the City.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Utilities and Service Systems

3.17-16
Table 3.17-3: City’s Most Severe Demands of Multiple-Dry Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Fifth Year
Projected Supply 2020 UWMP (AF) 3,366 3,570 3,543 3,516 3,504 Projected Demand 2020 UWMP
(AF)
3,366 3,570 3,543 3,516 3,504
Projected Demand + Additional
Project Demand (AF) 3,366 3,852 3,825 3,798 3,786
Demand Increase 0% 8% 8% 8% 8%
Additional Supply Required 0 282 282 282 282
In accordance with GSWC’s 2020 UWMP, a 10 percent increase in water supply is required during dry years compared to normal years for GSWC’s portion of the Project. Therefore, with the 10 percent increase applied to GSWC’s portion of the Project demand of 139 AF, GSWC would require a total supply of 153 AF during multiple dry years.

Table 3.17-4: GSWC’s Most Severe Demands of Multiple-Dry Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Fifth Year
Projected Supply 2020 UWMP (AF) 15,893 16,330 16,780 17,242 17,335 Projected Demand 2020 UWMP
(AF) 15,893 16,330 16,780 17,242 17,335
Projected Demand + Additional
Project Demand (AF) 15,893 16,483 16,933 17,395 17,488
Demand Increase 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Additional Supply Required 0 153 153 153 153
As identified in the WSA, based on the estimated additional water required for the Project, an approximate 8 percent increase in supply is required to meet these demands for the City, and approximately 1 percent increase in supply is required to meet the demands for GSWC.

According to both the City’s 2020 UWMP and GSWC’s 2020 UWMP, after 2025, the BPP within the OC Basin is assumed to be set at 85 percent for retail water suppliers. This would mean that the portfolio for each retail water supplier that pumps groundwater from the OC Basin, would be composed of 85 percent groundwater and 15 percent imported water. As part of the OCWD’s Groundwater Reliability Plan, the groundwater levels are managed within a safe operating range to mitigate land subsidence, provide sustainability to the basin, and reduce the risk of overdraft. OCWD assesses the basin annually and sets a BPP uniformly for all producers, which is defined as the percentage of the retail water supplier’s total water demand that comes from groundwater.
l l I l I

I I I I I
IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Utilities and Service Systems

3.17-17
The BPP is based on estimated demands from all groundwater producers, the amount of imported water available from MET, the estimated basin operating range, basin storage conditions, the amount of recharge water available to OCWD, and other factors. Groundwater producers meet bi-annually with OCWD to establish an RA based on demands estimated from the previous year and the amount of groundwater that has been pump during the year. While there is no legal limit as to how much a groundwater producer pumps from this basin, agencies that pump above the established BPP are charged a RA fee plus a BEA fee. OCWD forecasts that the basin will be able to sustain a BPP of 85 percent beyond 2025 to meet demands from groundwater producers. Since the BPP is established annually by OCWD’s assessment of the OC Basin, the BPP is subject to change. For this analysis, the BPP is assumed to be held at 85 percent through 2045.

The City’s and GSWC’s projected water supplies identified in their respective 2020 UWMPs would not be adequate to serve the additional demand that would result from maximum buildout of the Project.

However, each retail water supplier would be able to meet the projected and additional demand associated with the Project through 2045 with a combination of groundwater production and imported water purchased. Imported MET water purchases through MWDOC and groundwater production within the OC Basin are established annually via agency coordination based on the estimated demands and various other factors in Orange County. These estimated demands will include the Project starting in 2029.

Based on MET’s reliability and sustainable management of the OC Basin by OCWD, the WSA concluded that the additional demand from the Project along with the projected demands from the UWMP can be met as these additional demands would be accounted for during coordination and BPP establishment for the following year. With the BPP set at 85 percent, the Project’s demand increase of 435 AF during dry years would require total additional ground water pumping of 370 AF and total additional purchasing of 65 AF from imported sources. This represents approximately a 0.1 percent increase in total groundwater production over the estimated average within the OC Basin and a 0.05 percent increase over the total estimated average water purchased from MWDOC for retail sales. Each retail water supplier’s portion of the Project is presented in Table 3.17-5.

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 Retail Water Supplier Groundwater (AFY) Imported Water (AFY) Total (AFY) City of Seal Beach (Housing
Opportunity Sites 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8,
Main Street Program)
240 42 282
GSWC West Orange Service Area
(Housing Opportunity Site 4 – The
Shops at Rossmoor)
130 23 153
Additional Supply Required 370 65 435
For any demands beyond the annual estimates within the retail water suppliers service area, the retail water supplier may either have to increase groundwater production beyond the BPP established by IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Utilities and Service Systems

3.17-18
OCWD, which may result in costs incurred associated with RA and BEA or would need to purchase more imported water from MWDOC to provide adequate supplies to meet the increased demand.

As shown in Table 3.17-5, Housing Opportunity Site 4 - The Shops at Rossmoor, is anticipated to receive water distribution service from GSWC. The remaining Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program would be served by the City of Seal Beach. This has been accounted for in the additional demand from the Project the supply analysis described in the WSA, and there would be adequate water supplies available to serve the Project during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to water supplies.

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 WSA determined that the maximum buildout scenario of the seven Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program served by the City would result in an additional water demand of 266 AFY (1,054 dwelling units) for a normal water year. Scaling to the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project, the additional 167 units would result in an additional water demand of 42 AFY for a total of 308 AFY above the projected demands established in the City’s 2020 UWMP. With the additional demands associated with the Project, the City would require additional water supplies to be able to meet the City’s projected overall demand. As identified in the WSA, based on the estimated additional water required for the Project and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project, an approximate 9.3 percent increase in supply is required to meet these demands. Based on MET’s reliability and sustainable management of the OC Basin by OCWD, the WSA concluded that the additional demand from the Project along with the projected demands from the UWMP can be met as these additional demands would be accounted for during coordination and BPP establishment for the following year. With the BPP set at 85 percent, additional demands of 308 AF would require ground water pumping of 262 AF and purchasing of 46 AF from imported sources for the City.

This represents approximately a 0.12 percent increase in groundwater production over the estimated annual average within the OC Basin and a 0.05 percent increase over the estimated annual average MET water purchased for retail sales.

For any demands beyond the annual estimates, the City may have to increase groundwater production beyond the BPP established by OCWD, which may result in costs incurred associated with RA and BEA.

The other option would be to purchase more imported water from MWDOC to provide adequate supplies to meet the increased demand. 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.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Utilities and Service Systems

3.17-19
Wastewater Treatment and Collection System
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.

Impact Analysis
As outlined in the City’s 2020 UWMP, the City does not own or operate wastewater treatment facilities but owns and operates the wastewater collection system in its service area that sends all wastewater to OC San for treatment and disposal. Housing Opportunity Site 4 - The Shops at Rossmoor would receive wastewater services from Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area Sewer District which collects wastewater then sends it to OC San, and Housing Opportunity Site 2 – Leisure World would receive wastewater collection services from the City with a short sewer pipe connected to the OC San collection system. Ultimately, the wastewater is treated at OC San treatment plants in Fountain Valley (Plant No. 1) and Huntington Beach (Plant No. 2) (City of Seal Beach 2021). As identified on OC San’s website, in 2023-2024 the estimated average daily flow of wastewater received at Plant No. 1 was 124 MGD and 68 MGD at Plant No. 2 for a total wastewater received of 192 MGD (OC San 2024).

The City’s 2018 Sewer System Master Plan includes unit flow factors based on various land uses to calculate the amount of potential wastewater flows. For a high-density residential development, the unit flow factor is identified as 160 gpd per dwelling unit (City of Seal Beach 2018). The Project’s maximum buildout scenario would result in construction of up to 1,606 dwelling units from the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program. Utilizing the unit flow factor identified in the City’s Sewer System Master Plan, 1,606 dwelling units from the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program developed as high-density residential uses would result in 256,960 gallons of wastewater produced per day. As identified above, OC San had an estimated average daily flow of 192 MGD during 2023-2024. Therefore, the potential increase of 256,960 gpd of wastewater would represent a 0.13 percent increase from existing flows. As the Project would result in a less than one percent increase from existing wastewater flows treated at OC San’s two wastewater treatment facilities, wastewater generated by buildout of the Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program area would be anticipated to be served by OC San’s existing treatment capacity. Though the wastewater treatment provider is anticipated to have capacity to serve future developments under the Project, project applicants would be required to ensure that adequate treatment capacity is available at the time specific development projects are proposed.

In addition, OC San levies connection fees for new or expanded sewer connections, including those to new development. These connection fees help fund the costs associated with providing wastewater facility capacity to both new users requiring new connections, as well as existing users requiring additional capacity. Future developments under the Project would be subject to discretionary permits and required to adhere to all federal, state, and local requirements related to wastewater treatment during construction and operations. Future developments would be required to comply with the CALGreen Code, which requires that new construction use high-efficiency plumbing fixtures, such as high-efficiency toilets, urinals, showerheads, and faucet fixtures. Implementation of water conservation and efficiency measures would reduce the wastewater generated.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Utilities and Service Systems

3.17-20
Future buildout of development projects facilitated the Project would occur incrementally and would be required to consult with the wastewater treatment provider to ensure that they have adequate capacity to treat the increased amount of wastewater generated by the proposed development. Through personal conversations with the City of Seal Beach, regarding the Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program, the Project poses no significant impacts to the existing wastewater infrastructure. The Project is not anticipated to 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. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

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 component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would have a potential increase of 26,720 gpd of wastewater. Therefore, the total 1,773 dwelling units from the Project and ORCC Specific Plan Project would have a total potential increase of 0.14 percent increase from the existing flows of OC San during 2023-2024. Therefore, implementation of the Project and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would continue to result in a less than one percent increase from existing wastewater flows treated as OC San’s two wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, the 167 dwelling units proposed under the ORCC Specific Plan Project were considered within the analysis of this Project. Future development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project may result in capacity deficiencies due to the existing wastewater infrastructure’s ability to adequately serve the project (Personal Communication, April 30, 2025). 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.

3.17.4 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)).

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Utilities and Service Systems

3.17-21
systems include impacts from the Project as well as the ORCC Specific Plan Project and the Lampson Project. It should be noted that the ORCC Specific Plan Project and Lampson Project are being evaluated in respective standalone EIR’s. See Table 3.17-6.

Table 3.17-6: Cumulative Projects Related to Utility and Service Systems # Project Name Location Project
Characteristics Status Total Residential 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
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
Future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City or projects like the ORCC Specific Plan Project and the Lampson Project, would increase housing development and could result in increased water demands requiring additional water supply and increased wastewater generation. It is estimated that water demands would increase by 42 AF and 51 AF (Lampson EIR), respectively, for the ORCC Specific Plan Project and Lampson Project. Wastewater generation is estimated to increase by 26,720 gpd and 49,468 gpd (Lampson EIR) respectively, for the ORCC Specific Plan Project and Lampson Project.

Including the Project, the additional water demand from the cumulative developments equates to a total water demand increase of 498 AF during normal years. Based on MET’s reliability and sustainable management of the OC Basin by OCWD it is anticipated that these demands can be met with the established BPP and imported water purchases from MWDOC at the time of project development and will have a less than significant impact.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Utilities and Service Systems

3.17-22
Though the wastewater treatment provider is anticipated to have capacity to serve future developments under the Project, project applicants would be required to ensure that adequate treatment capacity is available at the time specific development projects are proposed.

Regarding utility and service system facilities, the potential for cumulative impacts in conjunction with cumulative development is not anticipated. The impacts posed by the Project and cumulative projects are site specific and may impact the infrastructure in the immediate vicinity of those projects only. Therefore, cumulative impacts from the Project in conjunction with cumulative projects are not anticipated due to the proximity of the cumulative developments to the Project.

Future development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project may result in capacity deficiencies due to the existing wastewater infrastructure’s ability to adequately serve the project (Personal Communication, April 30, 2025). Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. A standalone EIR was prepared for the Lampson Project (SCH.

No. 2022090476) and identified less than significant impacts to the wastewater infrastructure from the Lampson Project. This information is included in this EIR for discussion purposes. However, cumulative impacts from the Project in conjunction with cumulative projects may result in deficiencies to the exiting wastewater infrastructure. Future impacts shall be analyzed at the time of project specific evaluation.

Unless exempt, future developments on the Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program area facilitated by the Project would be subject to discretionary permits and require CEQA evaluation at the project-level. This means that each individual project, unless exempt, would require separate discretionary approval and CEQA assessment, which would address potential cumulative utilities and service systems impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate.

3.17.5 References
City of Los Alamitos. 2024. Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH. No. 2022090476 for 4665 Lampson Avenue City of Los Alamitos, California, April 24, 2024. https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/281692- 3/attachment/VLJG0qJs5Z4kjxubCrGFsP1owcztXZS4t5bFT6Sj0UsvHq- _UtkBNAhO0oLXp5XH9dhlj4wXQvcejRsM0. Accessed April 2025.

City of Seal Beach. 2008. Drainage Master Plan.
https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Attachment%208%20Section%201%20Execu tive%20Summary.pdf#:~:text=The%20objective%20of%20this%20Master%20Plan%20of%20Drai nage,facilities%20in%20an%20efficient%20and%20cost%20effective%20manner. Accessed March 2025.
_____. 2018. Sewer Master Plan, February 2018.
https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Draft%202018%20Sewer%20Master%20Plan .pdf. Accessed October 2024.
_____. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Public%20Works/Seal%20Beach%202020%2 IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Utilities and Service Systems

3.17-23
0UWMP%20FINAL%20DRAFT%2006102021.pdf?ver=2021-06-10-151133-793. Accessed October 2024.

California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2024. 2024 California Gas Report. https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/2024-08/2024-California-Gas-Report-Final.pdf.

Accessed March 2025.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2025. Electricity Consumption. https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energy-consumption-dashboards-0.

Accessed March 2025.

Golden State Water Company (GSWC). 2021. West Orange Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fuwmp_attachments%2F1441205680% 2FGSWC-West%20Orange%202020%20UWMP%20Final.pdf. Accessed March 2025.

Orange County Sanitation District (OC San). 2024. Facts and Key Statistics. https://www.ocsan.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2024/10/Facts-and-Key-Statistics.pdf. Accessed October 2024.

Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Area Sewer District. 2001. 2001 Sewer Master Plan Update. https://rossmoorlosalamitossd.specialdistrict.org/files/c46d787ec/RLASD+SewerMasterPlan+Rep ort.pdf. Accessed March 2025.

Southern California Gas. 2025. About Us. https://www.socalgas.com/about-us. Accessed March 2025.

Southern California Edison. 2025. About Us. https://www.sce.com/about-us. Accessed March 2025.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
4-1

4.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

4.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of an alternatives analysis pursuant to CEQA is to identify feasible options that would attain most of the basic objectives of a proposed project while reducing its significant effects. Provisions of CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6) that address the number of project alternatives required in an EIR state the following:

The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason;” the EIR must evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasonable choice. The alternatives shall be limited to those that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of a proposed project while meeting most of the underlying project objectives.

4.2 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES
An important aspect of EIR preparation is the identification and assessment of alternatives to the proposed project that have the potential to avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant impacts. In addition to mandating consideration of the no project alternative, CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(e)) emphasize the selection of a reasonable range of feasible alternatives and adequate assessment, which allows decision-makers to use a comparative analysis. CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(a)) states:

An EIR shall describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15126.6, this EIR contains a comparative impact assessment of alternatives to the Project. The primary purpose of this assessment is to provide decision-makers and the public with a reasonable number of feasible Project alternatives that could attain most of the basic Project objectives while avoiding or reducing any of the Project’s significant adverse environmental effects.

Important considerations for these alternatives’ analyses are provided below:
• An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project; • An EIR should identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency, but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process;
• Reasons for rejecting an alternative include:
o Failure to meet most of the basic project objectives
IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
4-2
o Infeasibility
o Inability to avoid significant environmental effects

4.2.1 No Project Alternative
CEQA Guidelines require that the alternatives be compared to the project’s environmental impacts and that the “no project” alternative be considered (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d)(e)). Section 15126.6(d)(e)(1) states:

The specific alternative of “no project” shall also be evaluated along with its impact. The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project.

The no project alternative analysis is not the baseline for determining whether the proposed project’s environmental impacts may be significant, unless it is identical to the existing environmental setting analysis which does establish that baseline.

The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the Project with the impacts of not approving the Project.

4.2.2 Consistency with Project Objectives
A project’s statement of objectives describes the purpose of the project and the reasons for undertaking the project. To be considered for detailed analysis in the EIR, an alternative must meet most of the project objectives. The following lists the basic objectives of the Project for purposes of screening potential alternatives:
• 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.

4.2.3 Feasibility
According to CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(f)(1):

Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
4-3
plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). No one of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives.

Based on CEQA Guidelines, “feasible” is defined as, “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15364). CEQA does not require that an EIR determine the ultimate feasibility of a selected alternative, but rather that an alternative be potentially feasible.

For the screening analysis, the potential feasibility of potential alternatives was assessed using the following considerations:
• Technological Feasibility: Is the alternative feasible from a technical perspective, considering available technology? Are there any construction, operation, or maintenance constraints that cannot be overcome?
• Legal Feasibility: For example, do legal protections on lands or financing strategies preclude or substantially limit the feasibility of constructing the alternative? • Economic Feasibility: Is the alternative so costly that its costs would prohibit its implementation?
In determining what alternatives should be considered in the EIR, it is important to acknowledge the objectives of the Project, the Project’s significant effects, and unique Project considerations. These factors are crucial to the development of alternatives that meet the criteria specified in Section 15126.6(a). Although, as noted above, an EIR must contain a discussion of “potentially feasible” alternatives, the ultimate determination whether an alternative is feasible or infeasible is made by the lead agency’s decision-making body (PRC Section 21081[a][3]).

4.3 METHODOLOGY AND SCREENING CRITERIA
A range of potential alternatives was developed and subjected to the screening criteria. Several representative alternatives were considered. There was no attempt to include every conceivable alternative. The following criteria were used to screen potential alternatives:
• Does the alternative meet most of the Project objectives? • Is the alternative potentially feasible?
• Would the alternative substantially reduce one or more of the significant impacts associated with the Project?
The 167 dwelling units associated with 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 site IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
4-4
inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The other portions of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are not included within RHNA requirements and therefore are not included within this analysis. As such, specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR. This EIR is not rezoning or entitling the ORCC Specific Plan pipeline project. As such, neither the ORCC Specific Plan Project nor the 167 dwelling units associated with the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are considered in the alternatives evaluation in this EIR.

4.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED FROM FURTHER

CONSIDERATION
As described above, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) provides that the range of potential alternatives for the project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. Alternatives that fail to meet the fundamental project purpose need not be addressed in detail in an EIR. (In re BayDelta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165-1167)
In determining what alternatives should be considered in the EIR, it is important to acknowledge the objectives of the Project, the Project’s significant effects, and unique Project considerations. These factors are crucial to the development of alternatives that meet the criteria specified in Section 15126.6(a). Although, as noted above, EIRs must contain a discussion of “potentially feasible” alternatives, the ultimate determination as to whether an alternative is feasible or infeasible is made by lead agency decision-makers. (See PRC, Section 21081[a][3]). At the time of action on the Project, the decision-makers may consider evidence beyond that found in this EIR in addressing such determinations.

The decision-makers, for example, may conclude that a particular alternative is infeasible (i.e., undesirable) from a policy standpoint, and may reject an alternative on that basis provided that the decision-makers adopt a finding, supported by substantial evidence, to that effect, and provided that such a finding reflects a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and other considerations supported by substantial evidence. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego [1982] 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz [2009] 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 998.)
The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected during the planning or scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. The following alternatives were considered but are not evaluated further in this Draft EIR for the reasons discussed below.

4.4.1 Reduce Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions and VMT Impacts The Draft EIR determined that future developments under the Project would likely result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality and GHG emissions, and VMT. Developing an environmental alternative to reduce the determination to less than significant while keeping the amount of housing needed to satisfy the RHNA was considered. To reduce the air quality, GHG, and VMT impacts, the IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
4-5
residential population in the City would need to increase without increasing daily trips per person so that the population growth outpaces VMT. A robust transit system including high priority transit areas and sufficient transit infrastructure linking jobs with housing would be required to accomplish this objective.

While there is some transit serving the City, it is not sufficiently robust to be considered as a means of significantly reducing VMT. As identified previously, the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program are distributed throughout the City with the majority of the sites located within the northern portion of the City. For transit to make enough of a reduction in vehicle trips to reduce VMT and then by extension air quality and GHG emissions, it would need to be available throughout the City, and with sufficient frequency that it would encourage ridership. As this potential is well beyond the Project that is focused on increasing zoning for residential uses and involves a shift from personal car use to transit that is not currently possible, this alternative was ultimately not selected for further analysis in the EIR.

4.4.2 Dedication of Land for Parkland
The Draft EIR determined that future developments under the Project would likely result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to parkland. Developing an alternative to reduce the determination to less than significant by providing more parkland while keeping the amount of housing needed to satisfy the RHNA was considered. Under this alternative, future developments facilitated by the Project would be required to dedicate a portion of the project site for development of onsite parkland. This alternative would require developing the sites at a higher density than was envisioned in the Housing Element Update to accommodate the allocation of a portion of the project site for parkland uses and would require an increase in vertical development to accommodate the higher density required on the same size parcels.

The City has a desired acreage requirement of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. As identified in Section 3.14, Recreation, of this Draft EIR, the resulting population growth from future developments facilitated by the Project would require an additional 14.46 acres of parkland within the City. The eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area has a total land area of 104.45-acres; however, only 56.05-acres of the total land area is developable. Therefore, there would not be enough land available within the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area to accommodate the additional parkland required while also providing enough dwelling units to meet the City’s RHNA requirements. This alternative was determined to not be feasible and therefore, this alternative was not further analyzed in this Draft EIR.

4.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Alternatives to the Project considered for analysis in this Draft EIR are:
• No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative

4.5.1 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 IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
4-6
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. Table 4.5-1 below outlines the existing zoning designations for the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program and the allowable dwelling units based on the existing zoning designations.

Table 4.5-1: No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative Buildout Assumption Site Name Existing Zoning Dwelling Units based on
Existing Zoning
Housing Opportunity Site 1 - 1780 Pacific Coast
Highway
RMD 5
Housing Opportunity Site 2 - Leisure World RHD-PD 177
Housing Opportunity Site 3 - Accurate Storage RHD-20 36 Housing Opportunity Site 4 - The Shops at Rossmoor GC 0 Housing Opportunity Site 5 - Old Ranch Town Center GC 0 Housing Opportunity Site 6 - Seal Beach Plaza SC 0
Housing Opportunity Site 7 - Seal Beach Center SC 0
Housing Opportunity Site 8 - 99 Marina Drive OE 0
Main Street Program MSSP 0
Total Units 218
Notes:

RMD designation allow duplexes, townhouse projects, apartments, and small-lot, single-unit residential uses, at a density of 15 to 18 dwelling units per net acre.

RHD designation allow for multi-unit residential developments at a base density of 20 to 46 dwelling units per net acre. The maximum density allowed for Housing Opportunity Site 2 – Leisure World is 32.2 dwelling units per acre.

RHD-20 designation allow for multi-unit residential developments at a base density of 20 dwelling units per net acre.

GC designation does not permit any residential uses.

SC designation permits two-unit residential (duplex) if an existing use; new uses are prohibited.

OE designation does not permit any residential uses.

MSSP designation permits single-unit and multi-unit residential developments if an existing use; new uses are prohibited.

Under the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative, the buildout assumptions for the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program would be 218 dwelling 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 and the current Housing Element and Zone Code would remain in effect. Land use densities and zoning would remain unchanged and development would be consistent with the existing zoning designation.

Additionally, as the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan pipeline project would require land use amendments and rezoning from the existing General Plan land use and zoning designation to allow for the development of the ORCC Specific Plan, the 167 units associated with the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project is not included within this alternatives analysis. Specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone EIR.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
4-7
Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Under the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative, the three Housing Opportunity Sites that allow for residential uses under the existing zoning designation would be developed in accordance with the existing zoning designation for the sites and the remaining Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area would not be redeveloped. This alternative would result in less potential future developments compared to the Project; however, it would still result in future developments that would change the existing character of the sites. The City’s Municipal Code and General Plan identify development standards to ensure quality development in the City and any aesthetics related policies in the existing Housing Element would continue to be implemented. The aesthetic impacts would be similar to the Project and would be less than significant.

Air Quality
Under the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative, rezoning of City land and increases in development density would not occur. The potential future development buildout under this alternative would be significantly less than compared to the Project and would result in lesser levels of criteria air pollutant emissions compared to the Project. Future developments under this alternative would require similar mitigation measures to reduce potential construction and operational emissions; however, as this alternative would require significantly less construction and would result in development of significantly less dwelling units than the Project, air quality impacts under this alternative would be less than impacts of the Project.

Biological Resources
Under this alternative, future developments would only take place on Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 2, and

3. As identified in Section 3.3, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, there are no special-status plant or wildlife species that have the potential to occur within Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 2, and 3. However, potential presence for bird species protected under the MBTA was identified for all Housing Opportunity Sites due to the potential for birds to nest in the trees that are dispersed throughout each site. Therefore, there would be a potential for bird species protected under the MBTA to occur within Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 2, and 3 under this alternative. Future developments under this alternative would require similar mitigation as those identified for the Project for preconstruction surveys for bird species and therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar to the Project.

Cultural Resources
Under this alternative, future developments could result in potential impacts to cultural resources, including historic and archaeological resources, similar to the Project. As identified in Section 3.4, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, Housing Opportunity Sites 1 and 2 include structures that are potentially 45 years or older and an identified historical resource (Naval Weapons Station) is located adjacent to Housing Opportunity Sites 1 and 3. Therefore, future developments under this alternative has the potential to directly and indirectly affect historical resources and would require further evaluation to IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
4-8
identify potential impacts. Additionally, as the City has a high sensitivity to precontact and historic period archaeological cultural resources, future developments under this alternative could result in discovery of previously unidentified archaeological resources. As such, future developments under this alternative would require similar mitigation as those identified for the Project and therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar to the Project.

Energy
Under this alternative, development of future developments would result in increased construction and operational energy demand from existing conditions. However, as identified in Section 3.5, Energy, of this Draft EIR, future developments under the Project would not result in significant increases in energy usage and impacts would be less than significant. Though future developments under this alternative would increase energy demand and consumption from existing conditions, as this alternative would result in development of less dwelling units than the Project, future developments under this alternative would not result in significant increases in energy usage. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar to the Project.

Geology and Soils
Under this alternative, future developments would take place on Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 2, and 3.

As identified in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils, of this Draft EIR, new ground disturbance that occurs in geologic units with high paleontological potential may encounter paleontological resources. This could occur at any depth in the Housing Opportunity Sites 1 and 3, and at depths greater than an estimated 5 feet at the Housing Opportunity Site 2. As such, future developments under this alternative would require similar mitigation as those identified for the Project and therefore, impacts under this alternative would be similar to the Project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative, rezoning of City land and increases in development density would not occur. The potential future development buildout under this alternative would be significantly less than compared to the Project and would result in lesser levels of GHG emissions compared to the Project. Future developments under this alternative would require similar mitigation measures to reduce potential GHG emissions; however, as this alternative would require significantly less construction and would result in development of significantly less dwelling units than the Project, GHG impacts under this alternative would be less than impacts of the Project.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under this alternative, future developments would take place on Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 2, and 3.

As identified in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft EIR, all Housing Opportunity Sites are located within the AIA for the Los Alamitos JFTB AELUP except for Housing Opportunity Site 8 and the southern half of Main Street Program. As future developments under this alternative would be developed in accordance with the existing zoning designation of the sites and would not propose General Plan or zoning code amendments, future developments under this alternative would not be subject to IJ
4-9

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
review by the Orange County ALUC. The Project was determined to result in less than significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials and as this alternative would result in less than significant impact, impacts under this alternative would be similar to the Project.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 2, and 3 are developed with existing uses and therefore, development of these sites under this alternative are not anticipated to interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.

However, future developments under this alternative would result in increased water demand from existing conditions which may result in increased demand to groundwater pumping for the City to supply adequate water to its customers. Operation of future developments under this alternative could potentially increase the rate and amount of surface runoff and could create flood hazards. To prevent long-term impacts related to Project operation, new developments would be required to comply with City Municipal Code requirements related to stormwater management similar to the Project. However, as there are existing storm drainage capacity issues within portions of the City, future developments under this alternative may result in flooding related impacts due to the existing drainage system in the City not providing adequate capacity, similar to the Project. Therefore, future developments under this alternative would require implementation of similar mitigation measures identified fort he Project to prepare an evaluation to determine the potential impacts the proposed development would have on the existing deficiencies to the City’s storm drainage system and provide mitigation measures to resolve impacts to the City’s storm drain infrastructure. Future developments under this alternative would require similar mitigation measures as those identified for the Project to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts under this alternative would be similar to the Project.

Land Use and Planning
Under this alternative, a total of 218 dwelling units would be planned for within the City, compared to the Project’s 1,606 dwelling units across the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program. The six Housing Opportunity Sites identified for rezoning under the Project would not be rezoned and would remain its existing zoning designation. Additionally, the Main Street Program which proposes amendments to allow for development of second story dwelling units within the Main Street Specific Plan area would not be implemented. As the purpose of this Project is to plan for the future development of dwelling units to meet the City’s share of regional housing needs, this alternative would not accomplish this goal. The City’s has an RHNA of 1,243 dwelling units within the current planning period. This alternative would only provide for the planning of 218 dwelling units and would not meet the RHNA requirement for the City. Even with inclusion of anticipated ADUs and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan pipeline project identified by the City to meet RHNA, this alternative would not provide for the planning of enough units for the City to meet its RHNA. Therefore, this alternative would not contribute toward the City’s RHNA numbers and would result in a greater land use and planning impact compared to the Project.

Noise
Future developments under this alternative would result in increased construction and operation noise in the vicinity of Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 2, and 3. The Project was determined to result in temporary and permanent increase in noise and vibration levels from future developments under the Project due to IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
4-10
construction and operational activities. However, all impacts were mitigated to a less than significant level with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in Section 3.11, Noise. Future developments under this alternative would be required to implement similar mitigation measures as those identified in this Draft EIR to reduce construction and operational noise as it would result in activities that would introduce new noise generating uses at the sites. However, future developments under this Project would require less construction activities and would result in a smaller increase in traffic noise within the City.

Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be less than the Project.

Population and Housing
As identified in Section 3.12, Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR, the City has an average household size of 1.8 persons per household. This alternative would result in the planning of 218 dwelling units which would result in a population growth of 392 residents. This alternative would generate significantly less new residents compared to the Project’s projected generation of 2,891 residents.

Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be less than the Project.

Public Services
Under this alternative, increases in demand for public services including fire and police protection and parks from existing conditions would result due to increased population growth from future developments.

However, the increase in demand would be less than what would result from future developments facilitated by the Project as this alternative would result in less population growth and development compared to the Project. Though the increase in demand for this alternative would be less than the Project, this alternative would still result in a significant and unavoidable impact to parks. As identified in Section 3.13, Public Services, of this Draft EIR, the City is not currently meeting its desired acreage requirements for parkland and excess park and recreation land does not exist to meet the forecasted demand that would be generated by future developments. The City is already at a deficit for park and recreation land and the increased population growth that would result from this alternative would increase the deficit. Therefore, impacts to public services under this alternative would be significant and unavoidable and would be similar to the Project.

Recreation
As stated above, under this alternative, increases in demand for park and recreational facilities would result due to increased population growth from future developments. Though the increase in demand would be less than what would result from future developments facilitated by the Project, this alternative would still result in a significant and unavoidable impact to parks. The City is not currently meeting its desired acreage requirements for parkland and excess park and recreation land does not exist to meet the forecasted demand that would be generated by future developments. The City is already at a deficit for park and recreation land and the increased population growth that would result from this alternative would increase the deficit. Therefore, impacts to recreation under this alternative would be significant and unavoidable and would be similar to the Project.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
4-11
Transportation
Under this alternative. traffic conditions at the future development sites and in the vicinity would change from existing conditions and additional traffic would be generated from construction and operational activities. However, compared to future developments facilitated by the Project, this alternative would result in a smaller increase in additional traffic as future developments under this alternative would develop significantly less dwelling units.

As identified in Section 3.15, Transportation, of this Draft EIR, individual development of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program were determined to result in VMT generation that would be above the threshold of significance. Therefore, development of Housing Opportunity Site 1 under this alternative would continue to result in VMT generation that would be above the threshold of significance as this alternative would develop Housing Opportunity Site 1 with the same number of units as the Project. As identified in Section 3.15, Transportation, Housing Opportunity Site 2 was determined to generate VMT at below the threshold of significance and as development of Housing Opportunity Site 2 under this alternative would continue to develop the site with the same number of units as proposed under the Project, development of Housing Opportunity Site 2 under this alternative would generate VMT at below the threshold of significance. Development of Housing Opportunity Site 3 with 36 units under this alternative compared to the Project’s 83 units would be anticipated to reduce VMT generated at the site to below the threshold of significance. Future developments under this alternative would require implementation of similar mitigation measures as identified for the Project. However, future development of Housing Opportunity Site 1 under this alternative would continue to generate VMT above the threshold of significance. Therefore, impacts to transportation under this alternative would be significant and unavoidable and would be similar to the Project.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Under this alternative, future developments would occur within Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 2, and 3. As identified in Section 3.16, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR, the NAHC SLF search resulted in a positive result for tribal cultural resources and the City is located in an area of high sensitivity for precontact Native American resources. Therefore, future developments under this alternative could require ground-disturbing activities in portions of the City that may have sensitive tribal cultural resources and may cause disturbance to tribal cultural resources by potentially unearthing previously unknown/unrecorded tribal cultural resources. As such, future developments under this alternative would require similar mitigation as those identified for the Project and impacts under this alternative would be similar to the Project.

Utilities and Service Systems
Under this alternative, future developments would result in increased demand for water supplies, wastewater treatment, and utility infrastructure from existing conditions. However, as this alternative would result in planning for significantly fewer number of dwelling units compared to the Project, the demand generated by this alternative would be less than the demand generated by the Project. As identified in Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems, with compliance with mandatory requirements under the City’s various programs aimed at ensuring adequate supplies and service infrastructure are IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
4-12
available to serve the development and adherence to existing programs, requirements, and regulations, impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, adequate water supplies and wastewater treatment capacity was determined to be available to serve future developments facilitated by the Project. As future developments under this alternative would result in significantly fewer number of dwelling units compared to the Project and thereby less demand, there would be adequate water supplies, wastewater treatment capacity, and utility infrastructure to serve future developments under this alternative. As the increase in demand under this alternative would be less than compared to the Project, impacts under this alternative to utilities and service systems would be less than the Project.

Conclusion and Relationship to Project Objectives
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 than the Project. The No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would not reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts to public services, recreation, and VMT and would not help the City meet its RHNA requirements as it would not plan for enough dwelling units. Additionally, the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would not meet the following Project objectives:
• 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.

4.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
The CEQA Guidelines require the identification of an environmentally superior alternative (Section 15126.6(e)), which is the alternative that best avoids or lessens any significant impacts of the Project, even if the alternative would impede to some degree attainment of the Project objectives. If it is determined that the “no project” alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other project alternatives (Section 15126.6(3)). The qualitative environmental effects of each alternative in relation to the Project are summarized in Table 4.6-1. To quantitatively identify an environmentally superior alternative a value has been applied to each environmental effect. Additionally, Table 4.6-2 provides a comparison of the IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
4-13
alternatives with the Project objectives. Accordingly, the alternative with the fewest amounts of impacts and the ability to achieve the most Project objectives is the environmentally superior alternative.

Table 4.6-1: Project Alternative Impact Comparison
Environmental Resource Topic Project No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative
Aesthetics LTS =
Air Quality SU -
Biological Resources LTS/M =
Cultural Resources LTS/M =
Energy LTS =
Geology and Soils LTS/M =
Greenhouse Gases SU -
Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTS =
Hydrology and Water Quality LTS/M =
Land Use and Planning LTS +
Noise LTS/M -
Population and Housing LTS -
Public Services SU =
Recreation SU =
Transportation SU =
Tribal Cultural Resources LTS/M =
Utilities and Service Systems LTS -
Notes:

Equal impact (=)
Less impact (-)
Greater impact (+)
Table 4.6-2: Project Alternatives Comparison to Project Objectives Project Objective Project
No
Project/Existing
Zoning
Alternative
Protect and improve quality of life for current and future residents. X X Encourage new housing for households at all income levels and for households with a range of diverse housing needs. X
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.

X
Remove undue constraints on new housing development, including for affordable housing development. X
Affirmatively further fair housing. X
IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
4-14
As shown above, the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative as the significant impact of the Project related to air quality and GHG would be reduced.

However, the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would increase potential impacts to land use and planning and would not meet the majority of the Project objectives.

As required by CEQA, if it is determined that the “no project” alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other project alternatives (Section 15126.6(3)). As all other Project Alternatives were considered to be infeasible and rejected from further consideration, the Project is identified as the environmentally superior alternative as it would achieve all of the Project objectives and would help the City meet its RHNA requirements.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Other CEQA Considerations
5-1

5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
This section describes the other statutorily required topics including growth inducing impacts, significant and unavoidable impacts, significant irreversible environmental changes, and mandatory findings of significance.

5.1 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACT
PRC Section 21100(b)(5) specifies that the growth-inducing impacts of a project must be addressed in an EIR. Section 15126.2(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides the following guidance for assessing growth-inducing impacts of a project:

Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.

Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also, discuss the characteristics of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.

A project can induce growth directly, indirectly, or both. Direct growth inducement could result if a project involved construction of new housing. Indirect growth inducement could result, for instance, if implementing a project resulted in substantial new permanent employment opportunities (e.g., commercial, industrial, or governmental enterprises) or if it would involve a substantial construction effort with substantial short-term employment opportunities that indirectly generates the need for additional housing and services to support the temporary demand. Under CEQA, a project would indirectly induce growth if it would remove an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on a required public utility or service (e.g., construction of a major sewer line with excess capacity through an undeveloped area).

It should be noted that growth inducement itself is not an environmental effect but may foreseeably lead to environmental effects. If substantial growth inducement occurs, it can result in secondary environmental effects, such as increased demand for housing, demand for other community and public services and infrastructure capacity, increased traffic and noise, degradation of air or water quality, degradation or loss of plant or animal habitats, conversion of agricultural and open space land to urban uses, and other effects. As such, to address this issue, potential growth-inducing effects were addressed by evaluating whether the Project would result in the following:
m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Other CEQA Considerations
5-2
Remove obstacles to growth (e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the Project area)? Expansion of public services to maintain desired levels of service? Encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
Encourage or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment?

5.1.1 Remove Obstacles to Growth
The implementation of the Project would not remove obstacles to additional growth in this manner as it would be undertaken in an area that currently is served by all utilities and services. Section 3.12, Population and Housing, analyzes the Project’s overall effect on population and housing, including growth-inducing considerations.

In terms of housing, implementation of the Project would provide for development of 1,606 maximum dwelling units, resulting in approximately 2,891 residents. The addition of 2,891 residents would increase the City’s existing population of 24,350 residents to 27,241 residents, representing an 11.9 percent increase. The maximum buildout of the Project with 1,606 dwelling units would increase the City’s total dwelling units from 14,678 to 16,284, resulting in a 10.9 percent increase.

Additionally, this EIR includes a discussion of the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project based on the proposed buildout of 167 dwelling units included within the City’s site inventory as a pipeline site. Therefore, with the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project incorporated, the resulting maximum buildout potential would increase to 1,773 dwelling units. The development 1,773 dwelling units would contribute an estimated population increase of 3,191 residents, which is an approximately 13.1 percent increase to the City’s 2024 population of approximately 24,350 residents.

Maximum buildout of these sites would increase the City’s total dwelling units from 14,678 to 16,451. This growth would exceed the City’s population projection for 2045 of 25,400 residents by 2,141 residents. The population growth associated with the Project and ORCC Specific Plan Project pipeline site would exceed SCAG’s population 2045 projection for the City of 25,400 residents.

However, the maximum scenario is highly conservative as it is unlikely that 100 percent of sites would be developed at the capacity analyzed in this EIR. Therefore, a “realistic development capacity” was used to determine the most probable yield of units at sites in the City’s Housing Element site inventory. This scenario assumed development of the five Housing Opportunity Sites being rezoned MC/RHD at 80 percent of maximum allowable density with the remaining three Housing Opportunity Sites at 70 percent of the maximum allowable density. Additionally, the site inventory includes the ORCC Specific Plan Project as a pipeline site that would provide 167 additional units. While under this scenario the Project and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would provide for development of 1,332 dwelling units resulting in approximately 2,397 residents and a total population of 26,747 residents, the Project and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would increase the City’s population by 9.8 percent and still exceed SCAG’s 2045 population projection for the City. •
•
•
•
m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Other CEQA Considerations
5-3
The purpose of the Housing Element Update is to plan for and promote housing growth within the City to meet the housing needs of the region and the state. While the scenarios exceed the population projections identified by SCAG, it is important to note that the identification of Housing Opportunity Sites in the City’s Housing Element Update does not mean that they will be developed at the estimated unit counts or level of affordability. Additionally, several laws passed in recent years, including the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330), aimed to address the need for more housing and expedite approvals for housing projects in order to respond to the state’s housing crisis. Implementation of the Project and future developments consistent with the Project would not directly induce substantial unplanned population growth but rather would address an existing need for housing and plan for future housing demand in the City. As such, the Housing Element Update is the City’s proposed plan to accommodate anticipated future growth and would not induce unplanned population growth and the impact would be less than significant.

5.1.2 Expansion of Public Services
The Project would increase residents in the City. The Project is expected to incrementally increase the demand for public services for fire and police protections services, which would contribute to the needs to expand facilities to accommodate future growth. The need for additional or expansion of existing public services as a result of future discretionary developments would need to go under CEQA review at a project-specific level. In the event new public service facilities or expansion of public services are required, they would be disclosed and mitigated, as feasible, at a project-specific level. As discussed in Section 3.13, Public Services, existing programs and policies would ensure that the increase in uses and impacts related to police and fire protection services would be less than significant.

5.1.3 Encourage or Facilitate Economic Effects
The construction of future development projects anticipated under the Project would create a number of design, engineering, and construction jobs. Jobs created by the Project would occur until construction of a Project is completed. Additionally, construction employees would be absorbed from the regional labor force, and the construction of future projects are not anticipated to attract new workers to the region. The Project would result in an increase in residents (see Section 3.12, Population and Housing). Future residents of the Project would seek economic opportunities within the City and surrounding area. This would create an increased demand for such economic goods and services and would, therefore, encourage the creation of new businesses and/or expansion of existing businesses that address these needs. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

5.1.4 Encourage or Facilitate Environmental Effects of Growth As discussed, the Project would result in a zone change for six of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites.

Implementation of the proposed zone change could further induce non-residential zoned sites to be zoned for residential uses. Future development proposals may change districts in the vicinity of the Project. However, these would require full environmental analysis of the impacts of such actions. The Project does not propose changes to any of the City’s building safety standards (i.e., building, grading, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, or fire codes). The Project would comply with all applicable City plans, m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Other CEQA Considerations
5-4
policies, ordinances, etc. and mitigation measures identified in this EIR to ensure that there are no conflicts with adopted land development regulations and that any environmental impacts are minimized.

Therefore, the Project would not result in precedent-setting actions. The impacts of subsequent similar actions would require environmental analysis and associated mitigation to ensure that such subsequent impacts would not significantly affect the environment.

5.2 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(b) requires an EIR to “describe any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described.” The Executive Summary contains Table ES-1, which summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and levels of significance before and after mitigation. While actions from the Project and mitigation measures, where feasible, would reduce the level of impact to less than significant, the following impacts would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation measures are applied.

5.2.1 Air Quality
The Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

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.

The Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to air quality.

5.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to greenhouse gases.

5.2.3 Public Services
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 parks and recreation.

The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable public services impact related to parks and recreation facilities.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Other CEQA Considerations
5-5

5.2.4 Recreation
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.

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.

The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to parks and recreation facilities.

5.2.5 Transportation
The Project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision(b).

The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable transportation impact related to VMT.

5.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Pursuant to Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must consider any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by a project should it be implemented. Section 15126.2(c) states:

Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.

Resources that would be permanently and continually consumed by implementation of the Project include water, electricity, natural gas, and fossil fuels; however, the amount and rate of consumption of these resources would not result in significant environmental impacts or the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources. As discussed in Section 3.5, Energy, construction of future developments facilitated by the Project would result in the irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable energy resources, primarily in the form of diesel and gasoline fuel from the use of off-road equipment (i.e., tractors, excavators, cranes) and on-road vehicles (i.e., construction employee commutes, haul trucks). Construction is not anticipated to require natural gas. Temporary electricity may be required to provide as-necessary lighting and electric equipment; such electricity demand would be met by portable generator sets and, possibly, local distribution. With respect to the operational activities associated with future developments facilitated by the Project, compliance with all state and local regulations, development standards, and applicable building codes would ensure that natural resources are conserved to the maximum extent practicable. As future construction and operational activities anticipated to occur under the Project would result in the •
•
•
•
•
m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Other CEQA Considerations
5-6
irretrievable commitment of non-renewable energy resources, consumption of such resources is associated with any development in the region and is not unique or unusual to the Project. Furthermore, new technologies or systems may emerge or become more cost-effective or user-friendly and would further reduce reliance upon nonrenewable energy resources.

The Project would not be expected to result in environmental accidents that have the potential to cause irreversible damage to the natural or human environment. The Project primarily involves the planning for development of future residential projects, which do not generate substantial hazardous materials. Future construction activities associated with the development projects anticipated under the Project would result in the limited use, transport, storage, and disposal of common hazardous materials. However, all activities would comply with applicable federal and state laws related to hazardous materials transport, use, and storage, which would significantly reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents that could result in irreversible environmental damage. As the Project does not involve substantial environmental hazards or unreasonably consume non-renewable resources, the irreversible environmental changes that would result from the implementation of the Project would be less than significant. m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Effects Not Found to be Significant
6-1

6.0 EFFECTS NOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, 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 (CEQA Guidelines Section 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 the PRC Section 21060.5 (Statutory definition of “environment”).

Effects determined to be insignificant or 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).

The Initial Study and NOP were circulated for public review between November 16, 2023 and December 15, 2023 and is contained in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. The Public Scoping Meeting on the Draft EIR for the Project was held on December 6, 2023.

It was determined that implementation of the Project would result in no impact or less than significant environmental impacts with or without mitigation related to the resource topics listed below in the Initial Study prepared for the Project. Analysis supporting the conclusions for these resource topics is included in Appendix A as part of the Initial Study and NOP. It should be noted that the Initial Study evaluated 13 Housing Opportunity Sites and included 1,833 dwelling units, which exceeds this EIR’s assumptions of 1,773 dwelling units (eight Housing Opportunity Sites, Main Street Program, and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project) by 60 dwelling units. As detailed in Section 2.0, the Project evaluated for the purposes of CEQA within this EIR only includes the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program. This EIR evaluated the Project (eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program) and programmatically discussed the residential portion of the ORCC Specific Plan Project as the 167 proposed units are included within the City’s RHNA totals. As the Main Street Program and the residential portion of the ORCC Specific Plan Project were identified as Housing Opportunity Sites 13 and 10, respectively, within the Initial Study, all components of the Project (eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program) and the residential portion of the ORCC were considered within the Initial Study and are therefore considered in the analysis included below. As such, reference to “the Housing Opportunity Sites” herein includes the Housing Opportunity Sites, the Main Street Program, and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project. The following resources are not discussed at further length in this Draft EIR. m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Effects Not Found to be Significant
6-2

6.1 AESTHETICS

6.1.1 Scenic Vistas
The General Plan does not identify or designate specific scenic resources; nor are there any specific policies related to the preservation of scenic resources. However, several of the Housing Opportunity Sites are in proximity to the Pacific Ocean and open space areas, which can be considered scenic vistas.

A substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista would occur where the majority of an existing view would be blocked or substantially interrupted. Individual developments developed under the Housing Element Update would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with the development standards of the applicable zoning district, including building heights, setbacks, and appropriate placement of buildings. Adherence to the City’s design guidelines and standards would minimize and reduce potential impacts to existing views and scenic resources. Implementation of the Project would not result in substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and impacts would be less than significant.

6.1.2 Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway
There are no state designated or eligible scenic highways located near the Project site nor are there any City-designated scenic highways or roadways identified by the City in its General Plan. The closest state designated scenic highway is SR 91, from its intersection with SR 55 to the northeast for approximately 4 miles along the Santa Ana River, and it is the only state designated scenic highway within the entire County. The closest Housing Opportunity Site is located more than 14 miles southwest of this portion of SR 91 and therefore, the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway and there would be no impact.

6.1.3 Light and Glare
Implementation of the Project would occur primarily in areas designated for redevelopment of currently underutilized parcels in the City. The Housing Opportunity Sites are located within illuminated areas.

While the increased density associated with Project implementation would introduce new sources of light and glare in their immediate surroundings, all new development would be required to comply with City guidelines and Municipal Code requirements, including Chapter 11.4.10.020, related to exterior security lighting, exterior fixture compatibility, outdoor illumination levels, minimization of light spillover and glare, and light standard heights. Therefore, the Project would not result in a new source of substantial light or glare and impacts would be less than significant.

6.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

6.2.1 Prime Farmland
None of the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites have been identified as Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Implementation of the Project would not have the potential to cause impacts to Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, nor does it have the potential to convert farmland to m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Effects Not Found to be Significant
6-3
non-agricultural uses. As such, the Initial Study identified that implementation of the Project would have no impact.

6.2.2 Agricultural Zoning
The Project does not have the potential to conflict with any existing zoning for agricultural use. According to the City’s Zoning Map Index and Orange County’s Public Works Land Records Map, none of the Housing Opportunity Sites are under existing zoning designations that allow agricultural uses onsite and none of the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites are under a Williamson contract. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract, and there would be no impact.

6.2.3 Forest Land and Timberland Zoning
There are no designated Timber Production Zones or agriculturally designated parcels within the Housing Opportunity Sites. Implementation of the Project does not have the potential to conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland zoned for Timberland Production. As such, there would be no impact.

6.2.4 Loss or Conversion of Forest Land
The parcels proposed for rezoning have various designations, and there are no forest lands located on or near the Project area. Therefore, development of the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses, and there would be no impact.

6.2.5 Change to Existing Environment
Development of the Project would require rezoning of the Project area to accommodate low- and moderate-income residential uses in areas throughout the City. None of the Housing Opportunity Sites are zoned for agricultural use nor were any of the Housing Opportunity Sites identified to include important farmland. The Project would not involve rezoning from agricultural to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and there would be no impact.

6.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

6.3.1 Local Policies or Ordinances
Future developments on identified Housing Opportunity Sites resulting from Project implementation may require the removal of trees, including street trees. However, all resulting development would be required to comply with the City Municipal Code Section 9.40, Trees, which includes limitations and permit requirements related to the removal of trees, particularly eucalyptus trees. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to abide by this regulation and ensure the Project does not lead to removal of designated landmark trees. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, and there would be no impact.
m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Effects Not Found to be Significant
6-4

6.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES

6.4.1 Burial Sites
Although unlikely, future Project construction activities could result in unknown human remains being unearthed during moving activities. Future developments under the Housing Element Update would be required to comply with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5; CEQA Section 15064.5; and PRC Section 5097.98, in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, requires that if human remains are discovered on a project site, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the PRC. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the NAHC. Although construction activities associated with future developments could result in the discovery of human remains, compliance with existing laws would ensure that significant impacts to human remains would not occur.

Therefore, compliance with existing laws and regulations would ensure that future developments resulting from Project implementation does not disturb any human remains, and impacts would be less than significant.

Information related to Tribal outreach is included in Section 3.16, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this EIR.

6.5 ENERGY

6.5.1 Energy Plan
The Project is intended to be consistent with the implementing General Plan Housing Element Update and future individual development projects resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with current and future iterations of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Code. Additionally, future developments would be required to comply with and implement goals and policies identified in the Housing Element Update that support energy conservation opportunities, including Title 24 energy efficiency standards and the statewide goal of transitioning the electricity grid to renewable sources. With implementation of Housing Element Update policies and compliance with existing standards and regulations related to renewable energy, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not conflict with or obstruct state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency and impacts would be less than significant. m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Effects Not Found to be Significant
6-5

6.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

6.6.1 Seismic Hazard
The City and Project site are located in the seismically active Southern California region. The currently designated Newport-Inglewood Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone traverses through the City. Within this fault zone is the Seal Beach Fault. All of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located to the north and south of this zone and not within it. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with the City’s General Plan policies related to geology and geologic hazards.

Mandatory compliance with existing regulations, including preparation and submittal of geotechnical studies and reports prior to approval of grading and development plans, would be required. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would have less than a significant impact related to rupture of a known earthquake fault.

While there is no way to avoid ground shaking and earthquake hazards, compliance with CBC requirements, including specific provisions for seismic design, would mitigate and minimize the effects of earthquakes on new future construction. The Project would require that future developments be designed in accordance with the CBC requirements and statewide regulations to minimize the effects of ground shaking to the greatest degree feasible. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would have a less than significant impact related to seismic ground shaking.

Geological and groundwater conditions are prevalent in the City and surrounding areas. Housing Opportunity Sites 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 as well as the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project (identified as Housing Opportunity Sites 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 in the Initial Study) are within a liquefaction zone, while Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 3, and 7 (identified as Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 4, and 8 in the Initial Study) do not appear to be within a liquefaction zone. Although a majority of the Housing Opportunity Sites are within a liquefaction zone, the Project area is developed with existing commercial, residential, and industrial uses, all of which required proper soil compaction and grading prior to construction, consistent with mandatory regulations and requirements that existed at the time of development. The Project would comply with the General Plan policies and would be constructed in accordance with CBC requirements and all applicable regulations pertaining to safety and stability related to seismic activity. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would have a less than significant impact from seismic related ground failure.

The Housing Opportunity Sites are at sea level. Seal Beach is relatively flat with an average elevation of 15 feet above sea level and the highest point reaching approximately 70 feet above sea level, as such, there are no hills (typically considered to be over 100 feet above the average elevation) or mountains adjacent to them, though the area backing up to Housing Opportunity Site 7 (identified as Housing Opportunity Site 8 in the Initial Study) is often referred to as a “hill,” by Seal Beach residents. There are no known landslides near the Housing Opportunity Sites, nor are they located in an identified landslide zone. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would involve grading and earthwork; however, mandatory compliance with existing regulations, including the preparation and submission of soil engineering studies, geotechnical evaluations, and seismicity reports for new developments would ensure that potential landslide impacts would remain less than significant. Additionally, the Project would m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Effects Not Found to be Significant
6-6
be required to comply with applicable policies and CBC design standards related to seismic and geologic hazards. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not cause substantial adverse effects related to landslides, and impacts would be less than significant.

6.6.2 Erosion
Onsite soils during Project implementation and construction can be prone to erosion during construction activities, such as site grading. To reduce the potential for erosion during construction activities, a SWPPP, which specifies BMPs for temporary erosion control measures, would be required. Standard erosion control measures would be implemented as part of the SWPPP to minimize the risk of erosion or sedimentation during construction. Additionally, the SWPPP would be required to include an erosion control plan that describes measures such as phased grading, limiting areas of disturbance, and diverting runoff from disturbed areas. Construction of future developments resulting from Project implementation would require the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and erosion control plans to minimize potential soil erosion impacts. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant.

6.6.3 Unstable Geologic Unit or Soil
The General Plan identifies that the City’s Grading and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Implementation Manual and Chapter 9.50.020 of the City’s Municipal Code require a geotechnical report to be prepared and filed for all projects in which a grading permit is required. Compliance with this requirement would minimize impact resulting from unstable geologic or soil conditions. The recommendations included in the geotechnical reports would be required to be included in the grading plans and implemented during future Project implementation and development. Furthermore, compliance with CBC design requirements and additional review and approval of grading plans would minimize impacts resulting from unstable geologic or soil conditions. Compliance with existing regulations, including the preparation and implementation of site-specific soil engineering and geotechnical evaluations, would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable, and impacts would be less than significant.

6.6.4 Expansive Soil
Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to prepare and submit a soil engineering report and geotechnical evaluations as required by Municipal Code Chapter 9.50.020.

Recommendations in the geotechnical reports would be required to be implemented into grading plans and during construction activities related to future developments resulting from Project implementations.

Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with CBC guidelines and grading regulations that would minimize the risks associated with development proposed in areas containing expansive soils. With implementation of recommendations included in geotechnical reports and adherence to existing regulations related to development in areas with expansive soils, impacts would be less than significant. m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Effects Not Found to be Significant
6-7

6.6.5 Septic Tanks
The General Plan identifies the City as completely “built out” and necessary infrastructure such as water, wastewater, and drainage systems are fully constructed to withstand City system demands. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems, and there would be no impact.

6.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

6.7.1 Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials During the construction phase, limited amounts of hazardous materials would be used, including standard construction materials such as concrete, paints, solvents, and heavy construction equipment which would contain diesel fuels and oils. The use of hazardous materials during construction would be limited and temporary. Project construction activities would be required to adhere to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and General Plan policies relating to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, with compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, impacts during construction would be less than significant.

The use of hazardous materials during operation of the Project would be limited to those commonly found at facilities such as solvents, cleaners, paints; chlorine and other chemicals for pool maintenance; and pesticides for landscape maintenance activities. These common household hazardous materials would be used in limited quantities and would not create a substantial hazard to the public or the environment.

Therefore, impacts related to the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during Project operation would be less than significant.

6.7.2 Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials
During construction activities, the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials could result in accidental releases into the environment. However, compliance with applicable laws and regulations would minimize the potential for hazardous materials releases that could pose harm to the public or environment. Future Project implementation would establish additional residential housing opportunities throughout the City. Common materials associated with residential uses include small quantity hazardous material, such as cleaners and pesticides. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would not pose a substantial hazard to the public or environment through accidental releases. Therefore, by complying with existing laws, regulations, and General Plan policies, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not create a significant hazard through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions, and impacts would be less than significant.

6.7.3 Emission of Hazardous Materials near a School
With the exception of two Housing Opportunity Site, all other Housing Opportunity Sites are located more than one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Housing Opportunity Sites 1 and 7 (identified as Housing Opportunity Sites 1 and 8 in the Initial Study, respectively) is located within one-quarter mile of m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Effects Not Found to be Significant
6-8
McGaugh Elementary School, which is currently surrounded by existing residential development, Seal Beach Boulevard and the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. As stated under 6.7.1 above, construction activities required for future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with all applicable regulations, Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and General Plan policies that would minimize risks associated with the use of hazardous materials during construction activities. The same regulations that would protect onsite construction workers from potential risks related to the use of hazardous materials would also protect any nearby sensitive receptors, including schools. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with existing laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials, waste, and emissions to minimize the potential for hazardous emissions to occur. Adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements would reduce potential impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation 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, and impacts would be less than significant.

6.7.4 Hazardous Materials Sites
The Housing Opportunity Sites are not listed on the Hazardous Waste and Substances List (Cortese List).

Several hazardous sites are identified within the City and individual development that occurs on the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites that may be located on or next to a hazardous materials site would be required to complete an ESA by a qualified professional to ensure that the future development projects would not disturb hazardous materials sites and that any proposed development would not create a substantial hazard to the public or the environment. Specifically, review of GeoTracker on March 14, 2025 demonstrates that Housing Opportunity Site 8 (identified as Housing Opportunity Site 9 in the Initial Study) was identified as an open site assessment in April 2024. Files available for review on GeoTracker identity the site as a Cleanup Program Site under Orange County Lead Oversight Program and the site’s 2013 Phase I ESA notes oil use and storage to formerly occur onsite, along with aboveground storage tanks and piping. Compliance with laws and regulations for investigations and remediation would be required prior to issuance of building permits. Furthermore, any future developments resulting from any of the Housing Opportunity Sites, Main Street Program, or the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would be required to prepare and submit a Phase I ESA, as appropriate. If the Phase I identifies a recognized environmental condition, it would recommend preparation of a Phase II ESA, which would consist of sampling and testing of soil, soil vapor, and groundwater for hazardous materials and human health risks assessments based on concentrations of the hazardous materials identified.

Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement the recommendations included in the ESAs to remediate hazardous materials before the City would issue building permits. If a new development that is developed under the Project is located on a property contaminated by hazardous substances, compliance with laws and regulations for investigations and remediation regulated at the local, state, and federal levels would be required. Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement General Plan policies that would minimize risks from hazardous materials sites. As future developments resulting from Project implementation would require adherence to General Plan policies, compliance with applicable m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Effects Not Found to be Significant
6-9
laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials sites, and preparation of ESAs, impacts would be less than significant.

6.7.5 Emergency Response or Evacuation Plan
The City has prepared an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to ensure protection of City residents in times of emergency and to identify local hazards and provide measures to address these hazards. All future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with applicable fire and building codes and would be required to be reviewed by the OCFA’s Community Risk Reduction Division prior to approval. Additionally, Project implementation would be required to comply with policies identified in the General Plan to ensure effective emergency response.

Compliance with General Plan policies, applicable fire and building codes, and the City’s EOP and LHMP would ensure that Project implementation would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, and there would be no impact.

6.7.6 Wildland Fires
The Housing Opportunity Sites are located on different parcels located throughout the City and are not located in hillside areas or areas with urban-wildland interfaces. Project implementation would not occur within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to adhere to a wide range of state and local codes pertaining to fire protection and would be required to abide by the City’s EOP and LHMP.

Adherence to the measures in these plans would minimize impacts to the extent possible and would ensure that new developments would not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with wildland fires. Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement General Plan policies identified to minimize risk from wildfire hazards. Therefore, with implementation of applicable state and local codes, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not expose people or structures to significant wildland fire risks, and impacts would be less than significant.

6.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

6.8.1 Water Quality Standards
With the implementation of General Plan policies, adherence to NPDES and Construction General Permit requirements, and adherence to all relevant state and local regulations, construction activities associated future developments resulting from Project implementation would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

With the adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements and relevant General Plan policies, runoff associated with both construction and operation of future developments resulting from Project implementation would not violate any water quality standards or discharge requirements.

Construction activities related to Project implementation could impact water quality due to erosion and other pollutants entering construction site runoff, resulting in polluted runoff entering the City’s stormwater m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Effects Not Found to be Significant
6-10
system. The City’s General Plan Open Space, Recreation, and Conservation Element encourages reducing urban pollutant runoff through implementation of NPDES programs. Additionally, Chapter 9.30 Storm Water Management Program of the City’s Municipal Code includes requirements for stormwater drainage systems, polluted runoff, control of water quality management, and enforcement and permit requirements. Any future developments associated with Project implementation that would disturb one acre or more of land would be required to comply with the Construction General Permit and all relevant NPDES requirements, including preparation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP would be required to include construction BMPs that address pollutant source reduction and provide measures of controls necessary to mitigate potential pollutant sources. The Project would also be required to implement General Plan policies that would ensure that new development minimizes potential water quality impacts. Therefore, with the implementation of General Plan policies, adherence to NPDES and Construction General Permit requirements, and adherence to all relevant state and local regulations, construction activities associated future developments resulting from Project implementation would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation of future developments resulting from Project implementation could potentially create new sources of polluted runoff and increase post-construction pollutants. However, as identified in the Housing Element Update, all of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites, except for Housing Opportunity Site 8 (identified as Housing Opportunity Site 9 in the Initial Study), in developed areas; therefore, development of the Housing Opportunity Sites, the Main Street Program, and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project would not result in a substantial increase in polluted runoff and impervious surfaces. To prevent long-term impacts related to Project operation, new development related to Project implementation would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Chapter 9.20, Storm Water Management Program. Municipal Code Section 9.20.015, Controls for Water Quality Management, outlines water quality management requirements for all new development and significant redevelopment projects, including requiring compliance with the Orange County DAMP. Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with development requirements and standards for storm drainage and stormwater runoff identified under City Municipal Code Section

11.4.10.020(H), Storm Drainage and Stormwater Runoff, including prevention of runoff, connection to the public drainage system, incorporation of design requirements and integration of BMPs, as required by the City’s NPDES permit requirements.

Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to incorporate General Plan policies which ensure that new development minimizes potential water quality impacts. With the adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements and relevant General Plan policies, runoff associated with both construction and operation of future developments resulting from Project implementation would not violate any water quality standards or discharge requirements, and impacts would be less than significant.

6.8.2 Erosion or Siltation
Implementation of the Project would result in changes to land uses which may result in an increase of impervious surfaces. However, except for Housing Opportunity Site 8 (identified as Housing Opportunity Site 9 in the Initial Study), the Housing Opportunity Sites identified under the Project are already m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Effects Not Found to be Significant
6-11
developed with existing uses and located in areas surrounded by existing developments and therefore, future developments resulting from implementation of the Project would be anticipated to utilize the existing drainage facilities in the City consistent with the existing sites. Project implementation would require construction activities that could result in increased potential for erosion and siltation to occur. The Project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Chapter 9.20, Storm Water Management Program. City Municipal Code Section 9.20.015, Controls for Water Quality Management, outlines water quality management requirements for all new development and significant redevelopment projects, including requiring compliance with the Orange County DAMP. Additionally, the future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with development requirements and standards for storm drainage and stormwater runoff identified under City Municipal Code Section

11.4.10.020(H), Storm Drainage and Stormwater Runoff, including prevention of runoff, connection to the public drainage system, incorporation of design requirements and integration of BMPs as required by the City’s NPDES permit requirements.

Future development projects would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP, including standard erosion control measures and BMPs to minimize the risk of polluted runoff resulting from increased erosion and sedimentation. The SWPPP would include an erosion control plan that identifies measures, such as diverting runoff from disturbed areas and treatment measures to trap sediment, to ensure there is no polluted runoff. Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to incorporate General Plan policies which ensure that new development minimizes potential water quality impacts resulting from erosion and siltation. With the adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements and relevant General Plan policies, runoff associated with both construction and operation of future developments resulting from implementation of the Project would not result in increased erosion or siltation on or offsite, and impacts would be less than significant.

6.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING

6.9.1 Established Community
The Project identified Housing Opportunity Sites within the City to allow for densified residential development, including low- and moderate-income housing units to help the City meet its RHNA allocation. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would occur within areas that are already developed and would not occur within any existing residential communities that could be divided.

The identified Housing Opportunity Sites occur in a variety of locations throughout the City and therefore, development of these sites would not result in division of established communities, and this impact would be less than significant.

6.10 MINERAL RESOURCES

6.10.1 Loss of Resource
The General Plan does not indicate that any Housing Opportunity Sites are located within an area of locally important mineral resources. Housing Opportunity Site 8 (identified as Housing Opportunity Site 9 in the Initial Study) is zoned OE; however, it is a vacant lot with no oil extraction or production activities m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Effects Not Found to be Significant
6-12
present. The Project area does not encompass the City’s identified resource areas and the Housing Opportunity Sites do not contain any known mineral resources that would be of value to the region or the residents of the state. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of any known mineral resources and there would be no impact.

6.10.2 Resource Recovery Site
The General Plan does not indicate that any Housing Opportunity Sites are located within an area identified as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Housing Opportunity Site 8 (identified as Housing Opportunity Site 9 in the Initial Study) is zoned OE; however, it is a vacant lot with no oil extraction or production activities present. The Project area does not encompass the City’s identified resource areas, which include Hellman Ranch, Esther Island, and the Seal Beach NWR. Housing Opportunity Site 3 (identified as Housing Opportunity Site 4 in the Initial Study) is the nearest site to one of the identified resources, Hellman Ranch, and is located approximately 0.3-mile to the northeast. None of the Housing Opportunity Sites are currently used for mineral extraction and do not contain any known or designated mineral resources. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would not have potential impacts associated with the loss availability of a locally mineral resource recovery site and there would be no impact.

6.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING

6.11.1 Displace Existing People or Housing
The Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by evaluating sites across the City that have the potential to develop new residential units. The purpose of the environmental review is to address the potential impacts resulting from buildout. However, the Project itself does not directly result in the development of any residential units. As such certification of the Project would not lead to the construction of new residential units. Instead certification of the Project allows for changes to the existing zoning designations and proposed use of the sites. Therefore, since the Project does not directly result in any new construction or development implementation would not require relocation of existing developments. However, if development or redevelopment at the Housing Opportunity Sites is proposed on an individual basis, displacement of existing people or housing could occur.

The Housing Opportunity Sites would likely be developed or redeveloped with a higher density residential development and provide for more residential units, as compared to existing conditions. Therefore, any existing housing that would be demolished as a result of future developments resulting from Project implementation could be replaced at a higher ratio of residential units. Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and impacts would be less than significant.
m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Effects Not Found to be Significant
6-13

6.12 PUBLIC SERVICES

6.12.1 Schools
As stated in the Housing Element Update, Project implementation would identify various Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City to provide additional residential housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households. Currently, a majority of the City’s K-12 student population need to travel outside the City to attend school, and Los Alamitos Unified School District is anticipated to have adequate capacity to serve potential new students generated from Project implementation. Los Alamitos Unified School District schools generally have small class sizes and low student to teacher ratios. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65996, payment of school impact mitigation fees is deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would also be required to comply with policies in the General Plan pertaining to ensuring adequate school services. Therefore, with the payment of required fees and incorporation of General Plan policies, the Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered school facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

6.12.2 Other Facilities
Other public facilities within the City include two County libraries. . Project implementation would create additional residential housing opportunities within the City to provide housing units to help the City meet its RHNA allocation. These additional units are not anticipated to result in an increase in demand on public facilities. The Leisure World Library, a privately funded and maintained library, is located in proximity to Housing Opportunity Site 2 and is available to residents and visitors to Leisure World. The Leisure World Library is outside of the proposed rezone portion of this site; therefore, no libraries would be removed as a result of future Project implementation. Additionally, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with the General Plan that states that consistency with the County’s Growth Management Plan would ensure adequate library services are provided.

Therefore, Project implementation would not result in the need for new or physically altered public facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

6.13 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

6.13.1 Geometric Design Features or Incompatible Uses
Project implementation would result in the alteration and intensification of existing land uses in the City.

Therefore, future developments resulting from Project implementation would require individual evaluations of the roadway alignments, intersection geometrics, and traffic control features. Roadway improvements would be made in accordance with applicable roadway design guidelines, as well as the Caltrans Roadway Design Manual, in addition to the General Plan Circulation Element policies pertaining to roadway design and improving the safety of all users of the transportation system. Therefore, with adherence to all applicable guidelines, policies and requirements related to roadway design, Project implementation would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use, and impacts would be less than significant. m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Effects Not Found to be Significant
6-14

6.13.2 Emergency Access
Project implementation would result in the alteration and intensification of existing land uses in the City which could result in inadequate emergency access if the new developments proposed under the Project are not designed to City standards and requirements. As such, future developments resulting from Project implementation would be subject to review and approval by the City’s Public Works Department to evaluate roadway alignments, intersection geometrics, and traffic control features, which would be made in accordance with all applicable local and state requirements related to emergency access and the safety of all users of the transportation system. Therefore, with adherence to all applicable guidelines, policies and requirements related to roadway design and emergency access requirements, Project implementation would not result in inadequate emergency access, and impacts would be less than significant.

6.14 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

6.14.1 Solid Waste
According to California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in 2022 the City’s residential population had a solid waste disposal rate of 6.3 pounds per day per person, and the City had a total disposal amount of 28,468 tons annually. According to the DOF, as of January 2024, the City is estimated to have a persons per household rate of 1.8 persons per household. Therefore, as implementation of the Project would provide a maximum of 1,833 additional dwelling units to the City, the 1,833 additional units would be anticipated to result in a population of 3,354 people. Using the disposal rate provided by CalRecycle, the 3,354 residents would result in a generation of approximately 21,130 pounds per day (10.6 tons per day) of solid waste. This would result in an increase of 3,869 tons of solid waste generated by the City annually. As identified previously, the City had a total annual disposal amount of 28,468 tons in 2022. The potential increase in solid waste generated by implementation of the Project would represent a 14 percent increase in solid waste generated by the City per day and annually.

Consistent with SB 1383, all dwelling units or complexes would be required to recycle food scraps and yard waste into green products with the goal of reducing the amount of solid waste sent to landfills. The additional dwelling units would be constructed over time resulting in a small increase year over year to existing solid waste generation and would be expected to generate less solid waste due to SB 1383 Therefore the increase in solid waste from the Project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts.

Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.025, Recycling and Solid Waste Facilities, which includes standards for solid waste and recycling areas. Additionally, construction activities associated with development of the Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the Housing Element Update would be required to comply with all City construction and demolition waste requirements. City Municipal Code Chapter 9.65, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste, outlines requirements such as preparation of a waste management plan, diversion requirements for construction and demolition debris, and reporting requirements. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would not generate solid waste in excess of standards or capacity of infrastructures and impacts would be less than significant. m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Effects Not Found to be Significant
6-15

6.14.2 Solid Waste Statutes and Regulations
The Project would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste and would comply with the City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.025, Recycling and Solid Waste Facilities, and Chapter 9.65, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste. Compliance with existing statutes and regulations would ensure that future developments resulting from Project implementation are constructed and operated in accordance with solid waste statues and regulations, and this impact would be less than significant.

6.15 WILDFIRE

6.15.1 Emergency Response
Project implementation would not occur within an SRA or VHFHSZ. Furthermore, the City has prepared an EOP and a LHMP to ensure protection of City residents in times of emergency and to identify local hazards and provide measures to address these hazards. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with applicable fire and building codes and would be required to be reviewed by OCFA’s Community Risk Reduction Division prior to approval. Additionally, Project implementation would be required to comply with policies identified in the General Plan to ensure effective emergency response. Compliance with General Plan policies, applicable fire and building codes, and the City’s EOP and LHMP would ensure that Project implementation would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, and there would be no impact.

6.15.2 Exacerbate Wildfire Risk
The Project proposes rezoning program to accommodate the planning of low- and moderate-income housing, as required by the state’s RHNA allocation for the City. None of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites are located within an SRA or VHFHSZ. Future developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to adhere to a wide range of state and local codes pertaining to fire protection and would be required to comply with OCFA requirements. Adherence to City and County requirements and Project review by the OCFA would minimize impacts resulting from Project implementation to the extent possible and would ensure that new development would not exacerbate fire hazards and would not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with post-fire landslides, mudflows, and flooding.

6.15.3 Associated Infrastructure
Project implementation would result in the parcels being converted for new development and would result in construction and installation of associated infrastructure to accommodate new development.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
Effects Not Found to be Significant
6-16
wildfire hazards. With adherence to applicable building practices and requirements, infrastructure associated with Project implementation would not exacerbate fire risk, and there would be no impact.

6.15.4 Expose People or Structures
With the implementation of applicable state and local codes and adherence to the City and County requirements, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risk, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

No impacts from wildfires would occur.
m

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report
List of Preparers
7-1

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Report Preparers
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.

Principal-in-Charge .............................................................................................................. Trevor Macenski Project Manager/ Principal Planner ....................................................................................... Anna Radonich Environmental Planner............................................................................................................ Kaela Johnson Environmental Planner.........................................................................................................Jennifer Webster Air Quality Specialist ...................................................................................................................Kaitlyn Heck Air Quality and Climate Change Consultant ............................................................................... Briette Shea Senior Associate, Acoustics..................................................................................................Tracie Ferguson Principal, Transportation Planning & Traffic Engineering ..........................................................Daryl Zerfass Principal Archaeologist ....................................................................................................... E. Timothy Jones Senior Architectural Historian ......................................................................................Emily Rinaldi-Williams Archaeologist ..............................................................................................................................Susan Davis Principal Paleontologist................................................................................................................. Alyssa Bell Paleontologist............................................................................................................................ Ceara Purcell Paleontologist........................................................................................................................... Matthew Cline Principal Biologist/Ecosystems Technical Resource Group Leader.........................................Jaren Varonin Senior Biologist ............................................................................................................................ Logan Elms Project Biologist ..........................................................................................................................Hannah Hart Associate Biologist ................................................................................................................ Allison Loveless Senior Technical Lead – Water.............................................................................................. Carrie Poytress Senior Civil Engineer............................................................................................................. Jonny Zukowski IJ
Appendix A
Notice of Preparation/
Initial Study and Written
Comments
Notice of Preparation And Scoping Meeting for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Environmental Impact Report DATE: November 16, 2023
TO: Reviewing Agencies and Other Interested Parties
FROM: City of Seal Beach, Community Development Department, 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740
PROJECT TITLE/SUBJECT: City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project – Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Seal Beach
NOTICE OF PREPARATION REVIEW PERIOD: November 16, 2023 – December 15, 2023 SCOPING MEETING: December 6, 2023
The purpose of this Notice of Preparation (NOP) is to notify potential Responsible Agencies (Agencies) that the Lead Agency, the City of Seal Beach (City), will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project) and to solicit comments and suggestions regarding (1) the scope and content of the EIR and (2) the environmental issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIR (California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Section 15082). This NOP also provides notice to interested parties, organizations, and individuals of the preparation of the EIR and requests comments on the scope and contents of the environmental document.

Project Location: The Project site is currently comprised of 13 Housing Opportunity Sites dispersed throughout the City totaling approximately 278 acres. The City 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 west. The City has a land area of approximately 13 square miles.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
In accordance with California Government Code Section 65584, projected housing needs for each city and county in the Southern California region are prepared by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) under a process known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The RHNA allocates regional housing needs by income-level among member jurisdictions. California law established the planning period for the current RHNA from June 30, 2021, to October 15, 2029.

The Housing Element is one of the seven state-mandated elements of a local General Plan and 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.

Background: An Initial Study was prepared for the City 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, but updated on August 24, 2023 in response to HCD comments, and 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 have the Housing Element Update certified and obtain compliance, as the Housing Element is one of the state-mandated elements of the General Plan. The Housing Element Update would bring the element into compliance with state legislation and the current SCAG RHNA.

The Housing Element Update includes the following components, as required by state law:
• 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.

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.

Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA): 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 housing units, which was distributed to all 197 SCAG jurisdictions (SCAG 2023). HCD compliance requires a demonstration by the City that it can meet its “fair share” of the RHNA allocation of 1,243 new housing units.

The City's latest RHNA allocation calls for 1,243 new housing 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. In addition, HCD recommends that cities identify a “buffer” of 15 to 30 percent above the stated RHNA allocation for lower- and moderate-income categories to account for “No Net Loss” provisions of Senate Bill (SB) 166, which requires that the land inventory and site identification programs in the Housing Element Update always include sufficient sites to accommodate the unmet RHNA.

Project Description: The Project analyzes potential impacts resulting from implementation of 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 RHNA allocation. 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.

The Housing Opportunity Sites inventory consists of three underutilized sites with a realistic potential for residential development and potential ADUs, as summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Underutilized Sites Inventory (Rezoning Not Required) The City’s RHNA allocation for the current cycle calls for accommodating 1,243 new housing units at low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income levels. Of this total allocation, there are eight planned or recently approved ADUs that are anticipated for development, as well as 85 units currently planned or recently approved on underutilized sites, which can be counted towards the City’s overall unit requirement.

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, below.

Table 2: Proposed Rezone Sites (Unless Military)
Site
No. Site Name
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
(APN)
Existing
Onsite
Use(s)
Approximate
Acres
Estimated
Developable
Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
4 Accurate
Storage
095-791-18 Vehicle and
boat storage
4 1.8 RHD-20 MC/RHD
5 The Shops at
Rossmoor
086-492-51 Retail, office,
fast food,
grocery and
pharmacy
27 10 GC MC/RHD
6 Old Ranch
Town Center
130-861-
14, -15, -
16, -17, -
18, -19, -
Existing
commercial
center with
bank,
26 5 GC MC/RHD
Site
No.

Address/
APN
General
Plan/
Zoning
Appr
ox.

Acres
Existing
Onsite
Use(s)
Assume
d
Density
(Dwellin
g Units
per
Acre)
LowerIncome
Dwellin
g Units
Moderat
eIncome
Dwelling
Units
Above
Moderat
eIncome
Dwelling
Units
Total
Units
1 1780 Pacific
Coast Hwy
(APN 199-
061-01)
Limited
Commer
-cial/
RMD-18

0.25 Older
convenie
nce store;
zoning
allows
mixeduse
20 -- 5 -- 5
2 Leisure
World
(APN 095-
691-04)
Resident
ial High
Density
–
Planned
Commun
ity

5.5 RV
Storage
30 74 38 38 150
3 Accessory
Dwelling
Units
All
Resident
ial and
MixedUse
Zones
N/A Residenti
al and
MixedUse
Zones
N/A 36 14 -- 50
TOTAL 110 57 38 205
Source: City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, Redline August 24, 2023 Version.

Site
No. Site Name
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
(APN)
Existing
Onsite
Use(s)
Approximate
Acres
Estimated
Developable
Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
20, -21, -
22, -23, -
24, -25, -
26, -27
surface
parking,
restaurants,
department
stores, retail,
services,
Ralph’s
supermarket,
and CVS
Pharmacy
7 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 2.5 CS-SC MC/RHD
8 Seal Beach
Center
043-260-
02, -05
Existing
commercial
center with
CVS
Pharmacy,
retail,
services,
restaurant,
and market
9 4 SC MC/RHD
9 99 Marina Drive 199-011-10 Former oil
separation
facility with
abandoned
handball
court

4.3 4.3 OE RHD-33
10 Old Ranch
Country Club
****
130-012-55 Portion of
existing golf
course
155 4 RG SP
11 Naval Weapons
Station PCH &
Seal Beach
Blvd. **
043-150-23 Portion of
Naval
Weapons
Station Seal
Beach
22 4 M N/A
12 Water Storage
Site (City
Property Navy
Base) **
-- Water and
Equipment
Storage

2.75 2 M N/A
13 Main Street *** 043-112-
21, -22, -
23, -28, -
29, -34, -
35, -36, -
41;
Existing
Main Street
Specific Plan
commercial
district,
including
retail,
services,
15 N/A MSSP MSSP
Site
No. Site Name
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
(APN)
Existing
Onsite
Use(s)
Approximate
Acres
Estimated
Developable
Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
043-113-
04, -08, 14,
-15, -36, -
37, -42, -
46, -48, 51;
199-053-
18, -19, -
20, -21, -
22, -23, -
24, -25, -
26, -28, -
29, -30, -
31;
199-043-
10; -11, -
12, -13, -
14, -15, -
16, -17, -
18, -19, -
20;
199-033-
02;
199-034-
01, -02, 03,
-04, -05, -
06, -07, -
08, -09, -
10, -11, -
12, -13, -
14, -15, -
16, -17, -
36;
199-044-
19, -20, -
21, -22, -
23, -24, -
25, -26, -
27, -28, -
29, -30, -
31, -32, -
33, -34
offices,
parking
areas,
restaurants
and bars,
theater,
medical
offices, plant
nursery and
other shops
and retailers
Source: City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, August 2023.

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.
** Zoning Not Applicable
*** Specific Plan Amendment Required
**** Land Use Change / Rezoning Required
GC = Commercial General
OSG = Open Space Golf
OE = Oil Extraction
RG = Recreation Golf
CS = Commercial Service
SC = Service Commercial
MC/RHD = Mixed Commercial/Residential High
Site
No. Site Name
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
(APN)
Existing
Onsite
Use(s)
Approximate
Acres
Estimated
Developable
Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
M = Military
MSSP = Main Street Specific Plan
Of the 13 Housing Opportunity Sites, six would require rezoning, one would be rezoned through a proposed Specific Plan, and one would require an amendment to the Main Street Specific Plan. The rezoning effort would also include the establishment of a new zoning designation, “Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density” (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 Residential High Density (RHD)-46 (up to 46 units per acre) but with a minimum density of 40 units per acre.

Redevelopment of underutilized sites and ADUs could accommodate a total of approximately 205 new housing units, and potential rezone parcels could accommodate a total of approximately 1,628 new housing units. Based on this, by implementing the Project, the City would be able to provide 1,833 additional housing units, thereby accommodating the 2021-2029 RHNA allocation (1,243 new housing units) and a substantive buffer to demonstrate capacity for all income levels.

As these Housing Opportunity Sites are intended to be redeveloped or rezoned, an increased densification and intensification of low- and moderate-income residential uses would result. The proposed Project is ultimately implementing the Housing Element Update; therefore, preparation of an evaluation pursuant to CEQA is required in order to consider the potential environmental impacts caused by Project implementation, including an evaluation of the new zoning and the new zoning designation resulting from Project implementation which would result in increased densification and intensification of residential uses.

Required Approvals
The Housing Element is a component of the City of Seal Beach General Plan. Additionally, the HCD will review the Housing Element for compliance with applicable statutory provisions.

A focused EIR will provide the necessary environmental determination required by CEQA. The focused EIR would be adopted by Resolution of the City Council.

Implementation of the Project would require the following approvals:
• Certification of the CEQA document;
• Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; • Adoption of the Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Consideration (if applicable); • Change of Zone/Specific Plan Amendment; and
• Seal Beach Municipal Code, Zoning Code Amendment.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO BE EVALUATED IN THE EIR
The City of Seal Beach, the lead agency for the proposed 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and focused EIR, is subject to environmental review under CEQA. As defined by Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study is prepared primarily to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for determining whether an EIR, Negative Declaration, or Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropriate for providing the necessary environmental documentation and clearance for any proposed project. The Initial Study prepared for the proposed Project has determined that the proposed applications will result in potentially significant environmental impacts and therefore, an EIR is deemed as the appropriate document to provide necessary environmental evaluations and clearance for the proposed Project.

Pursuant to CEQA, the discussion of 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 detail of discussion of the environmental effects that are not considered potentially significant (Public Resource Codes (PRC) Section 21100, CCR Sections 15126.2[a] and 15128). CEQA requires that the discussion of any significant effect 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”).

Environmental effects identified in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project that are dismissed as less than significant and unlikely to occur need not be discussed further in the EIR, unless the lead agency subsequently receives information inconsistent with the finding in the Initial Study (CCR Section 15143).

Environmental issue areas scoped out of the focused EIR will include an explanation of why these issues would not result in significant environmental effects and are not required to be evaluated further. The following environmental topics will be evaluated in the EIR:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Mandatory Findings of Significance
The EIR will address the short-term and long-term effects of the Project on the environment. It will also evaluate the potential for the Project to cause direct and indirect growth-inducing impacts, as well as cumulative impacts.

Alternatives to the proposed Project will be evaluated that may reduce impacts that are determined to be significant in the EIR. Mitigation may be proposed for those impacts that are determined to be significant. A mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) will also be developed as required by Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines. The environmental determination in this Notice of Preparation (NOP) is subject to a 30-day public review period per Public Resources Section 21080.4 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15082. Public agencies, interested organizations, and individuals have the opportunity to comment on the proposed Project, to identify those environmental issues, potentially affected by the Project which should be addressed further by the City in the EIR.

Scoping Meeting: Pursuant to Section 21083.9 of the Public Resources Code, a scoping meeting will be held for the general public and responsible and trustee public agencies, as indicated below. The purpose of the scoping meeting is to learn about the Project, review the anticipated scope of the EIR, and assist the City in identifying the range of actions, alternatives, mitigation measures, and potentially significant effects to be analyzed in depth in the EIR.

Scoping Meeting Date
December 6, 2023
Scoping Meeting Time
6:00 PM
ScopingMeeting Location
City Council Chambers
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, California 90740
Public Review and Comment Period: A 30-day public review period for comments on the scope of the EIR starts on Thursday November 16, 2023, and ends on Friday December 15, 2023 at 5:00 P.M. Please send your comment, with your name and address, to: Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director, City of Seal Beach, Community Development Department, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740 or via e-mail to:

[email protected].

A copy of the Initial Study/NOP describing the Project and potential environmental effects is available at the following locations:
• Orange County Public Library, Seal Beach Branch, 707 Electric Avenue, Seal Beach, CA 90740 • Orange County Public Library, Los Alamitos-Rossmoor Branch, 12700 Montecito, Seal Beach, CA 90740 • The City’s website: https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/PlanningDevelopment/Environmental-Documents-Under-Review.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING

ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE

UPDATES
Initial Study
November 16, 2023
Prepared for:

City of Seal Beach
Community Development Department
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Prepared by:

Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
1340 Treat Blvd, Suite 300
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
~ Stantec

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Table of Contents
i
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS / ABBREVIATIONS ...............................................................................................IV

1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 PROJECT TITLE......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS ..................................................................... 1-1

1.3 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER............................................................. 1-1

1.4 PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS........................................................ 1-1

1.5 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................ 1-1

1.6 SURROUNDING LAND USES .................................................................................... 1-2

1.7 PROJECT PURPOSE ................................................................................................. 1-2

1.8 INTENDED USE OF THE INITIAL STUDY.................................................................. 1-3

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Rezoning and Creating of New Zoning Designation ....................................2-2

2.3 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT.......................................................... 2-3

2.3.1 Existing Site Conditions...............................................................................2-4

2.3.2 Housing Opportunity Sites Categories.........................................................2-5

2.3.3 Housing Opportunity Site Descriptions ........................................................2-9

2.3.4 Housing Opportunity Sites Residential Development Potential.................. 2-17

2.4 SCHEDULE............................................................................................................... 2-18

2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS .................................................................................... 2-18

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, ANALYSIS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES............. 3-1 INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS............................................................. 3-1 Intended Uses of Initial Study and Notice of Preparation ..............................................3-2 Environmental Assessment Methodology .....................................................................3-2

3.1 AESTHETICS.............................................................................................................. 3-4

3.1.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................3-4

3.1.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ...................................................................3-4

3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES..................................................... 3-7

3.2.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................................3-7

3.2.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ...................................................................3-8

3.3 AIR QUALITY............................................................................................................ 3-10

3.3.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-10

3.3.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-10

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 3-12

3.4.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-12

3.4.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-13

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES........................................................................................ 3-16

3.5.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-16

3.5.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-17 II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Table of Contents
ii

3.6 ENERGY RESOURCES............................................................................................ 3-20

3.6.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-20

3.6.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-20

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................ 3-22

3.7.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-22

3.7.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-23

3.8 GREENHOUSE GASES............................................................................................ 3-29

3.8.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-29

3.8.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-30

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS............................................................. 3-31

3.9.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-31

3.9.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-33

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ..................................................................... 3-37

3.10.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-37

3.10.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-38

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING..................................................................................... 3-44

3.11.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-44

3.11.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-44

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES........................................................................................... 3-46

3.12.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-46

3.12.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-46

3.13 NOISE....................................................................................................................... 3-47

3.13.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-47

3.13.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-48

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................. 3-50

3.14.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-50

3.14.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-51

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES .................................................................................................. 3-53

3.15.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-53

3.15.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-54

3.16 RECREATION .......................................................................................................... 3-57

3.16.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-57

3.16.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-57

3.17 TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................. 3-59

3.17.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-59

3.17.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-61

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES........................................................................... 3-63

3.18.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-63

3.18.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-63

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS....................................................................... 3-65

3.19.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-65

3.19.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-67

3.20 WILDFIRE................................................................................................................. 3-70

3.20.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3-70

3.20.2 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-72

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.......................................................... 3-74 II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Table of Contents
iii

3.21.1 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................. 3-74

4.0 REPORT PREPARATION........................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 LIST OF PREPARERS................................................................................................ 4-1

5.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 5-1

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Current Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations ........................................ 2-4 Table 2: Underutilized Sites Inventory (Rezoning Not Required)............................................. 2-6 Table 3: Proposed Rezone Sites (Unless Military) .................................................................. 2-7 Table 4: Housing Opportunity Sites Residential Development Potential................................ 2-17 Table 5: Agency Permits and Environmental Review Requirements ..................................... 2-18 Table 6: City Interior and Exterior Noise Standards............................................................... 3-47

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Regional Map......................................................................................................... 1-4 Figure 2 – City of Seal Beach Map.......................................................................................... 1-5 Figure 3 – Housing Opportunity Sites Map.............................................................................. 1-6 II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Acronyms / Abbreviations
iv
Acronyms / Abbreviations
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standard
AB Assembly Bill
ADU accessory dwelling unit
AF acre-feet
amsl above mean sea level
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BMP best management practices
Cal EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCC California Coastal Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CH4 methane
City City of Seal Beach
CNEL community noise equivalent level
County Orange County
CO2 carbon dioxide
DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan
dB decibel
DOC California Department of Conservation
DOF Department of Finance
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA environmental site assessment
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FRA Federal Responsibility Area
General Plan City of Seal Beach 2003 General Plan
GHG greenhouse gas II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Acronyms / Abbreviations
v
GWh gigawatt-hours
GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System
HCD California Department of Housing and Community Development HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HFC hydrofluorocarbons
Housing Element Update 2021-2029 Housing Element Update ISMND Initial Study Mitigation Negative Declaration
I/L ratio ratio of improvement value to land value
LCP Local Coastal Program
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Los Al USD Los Alamitos Unified School District
MG million gallons
MGD million gallons per day
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx oxides of nitrogen
NWR National Wildlife Refuge
N2O nitrous oxide
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
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
O3 ozone
PFC perfluorocarbons
PM2.5 fine inhalable particulate matter
PM10 coarse inhalable particulate matter
PRC Public Resources Code
Project; proposed Project City of Seal Beach General Plan Zoning Code Updates Project RHD-20 residential high density
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standards
SB Senate Bill II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Acronyms / Abbreviations
vi
SBPD Seal Beach Police Department
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SoCAB South Coast Air Basin
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC toxic air contaminant
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT vehicle miles traveled II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Introduction
1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT TITLE
City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project, proposed Project)

1.2 LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Seal Beach
Community Development Department
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740

1.3 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director
Community Development Department
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
(562) 431-2527 x1313

1.4 PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740

1.5 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project site is currently comprised of 13 identified sites1 dispersed throughout the City of Seal Beach, California (City; Seal Beach) and totaling approximately 278 acres. 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, as shown in Figure

1. The City has a land area of approximately 13 square miles, as shown in Figure 2. 1 The Housing Element proposes an increase in accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that may be located in any residential or mixed-use area by right. Though ADUs are exempt from CEQA, and their respective locations are unknown at this time, the Housing Element collectively refers to them as a “site” (Opportunity Site 3) in order to recognize the contribution they make to housing production as required by the Housing Element. Therefore, the potential ADU sites are identified as one collective Housing Opportunity Site resulting in a total of 13 identified Housing Opportunity Sites. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Introduction
1-2

1.6 SURROUNDING LAND USES
As the existing land uses are comprised of a variety of land uses across the city, the surrounding land uses are similarly varied in character. They consist of residential development, vacant land, commercial and retail uses, parking lots, mobile home parks, institutional and industrial uses, and military uses as well as other urban and suburban land uses throughout the City.

1.7 PROJECT PURPOSE
In accordance with California Government Code Section 65584, projected housing needs for each city and county in the Southern California region are prepared by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) under a process known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The RHNA allocates regional housing needs by income-level among member jurisdictions. California law established the planning period for the current RHNA from June 30, 2021, to October 15, 2029.

In addition to including goals, policies, and implementation programs regarding housing issues, housing elements must include an inventory or list of housing sites at sufficient densities to accommodate a specific number of units at various levels of affordability assigned to the City by SCAG. The City's latest RHNA allocation calls for 1,243 new housing units, including 459 new units for residents in the low- and very low-income categories.

The Housing Element Update identifies Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City, as shown on Figure 3, that have the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. 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. In Seal Beach, the Housing Opportunity Sites uniquely include two sites located on the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, where the City has no zoning authority, but housing development would present a change of use. Of the 13 Housing Opportunity Sites, six would require rezoning, the two Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station sites would require a change of use, one is proposed for a Specific Plan, and one would require an amendment to the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP). The rezoning effort would also include the establishment of a new zoning designation, “Mixed Commercial/Residential High Density” (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 Residential High Density (RHD)-46 (up to 46 units per acre) but with a minimum density of 40 units per acre.

As these Housing Opportunity Sites are intended to be redeveloped or rezoned, an increased densification and intensification of low- and moderate-income residential uses would result. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Introduction
1-3

1.8 INTENDED USE OF THE INITIAL STUDY
This Initial Study is an informational document intended to inform the lead agency, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of potential environmental effects of the proposed Project.

The environmental review process has been established to enable public agencies to evaluate potential environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially significant adverse impacts. This document is intended to aid the City in determining the appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document needed to support agency discretionary approvals, permits, and consultations.

The proposed Project is ultimately implementing the Housing Element Update; therefore, preparation of an evaluation pursuant to CEQA is required in order to consider the potential environmental impacts caused by Project implementation, including an evaluation of the new zoning and the new zoning designation resulting from Project implementation which would result in increased densification and intensification of residential uses. The Housing Element Update includes an inventory of Housing Opportunity Sites located throughout the City, some of which are intended to be rezoned to accommodate the RHNA allocation of new housing units that would also be suitable for low- and moderate-income units. II Seal
Beach
Z:\seal_beach\fig_1_regional_location.mxd Revised: 2023-11-14 By: KAEJOHNSON 1 City of Seal Beach
Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates
Initial Study
Seal Beach, CA
Prepared by KJ on 2023-11-14
Review by AR on 2023-11-14
Regional Location
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.

Notes

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane
California V FIPS 0405 Feet

2. Data Sources:

3. Background: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,
Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO,
NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL,
Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China
(Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and
Figure No.

Title
Project Location
Client/Project
Legend
City of Seal Beach Boundary (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:425,000 ($ $ ¯ 0 3 6
Miles
City of Seal Beach
Be'verl y Hill s
Redondo Beach
. .>,
C
•
Inglewood .,,
~

PALOS VERDE HILLS
0 1413 ft
Oce
o
Long Beach
Pacific
Ocean
Whitti er
Norwalk l ::7 Bel
1 lflower
\ ce~
'
=--,-
Huntington ~
Be ach ~
£
Foun tain
Val ley
l't I • .,
Claremont
New'port Beach
Lngtn., Bench
() Stantec
La
Dan
Z:\seal_beach\fig_2_seal_beach_map.mxd Revised: 2023-11-14 By: KAEJOHNSON 2 City of Seal Beach
Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates
Initial Study
Seal Beach, CA
Prepared by KJ on 2023-11-14
Review by AR on 2023-11-14
City of Seal Beach Map
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.

Notes

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane
California V FIPS 0405 Feet

2. Data Sources:

Title
Project Location
Client/Project
Legend
City of Seal Beach boundary (At original document size of 8.5x11) 1:50,000 ($ $ ¯ 0 0.25 0.5
Miles
City of Seal Beach
,!!
SI z
111 SI
'ta
rd
';
A
iii 1,
<;~ ~i
I
8,vh::iley
o,.,to,,
:,
S'
r(!'<',;
VA long
Beach
Healthcal8
System
E Stearns s,
Flo$ SJ ntos Or
E '1J\..·u1ta St
Callforn1::i
State
Unwer sity
Long Beach
83M
E Atherton SI
-0
0:
th•St C>
Al1m1tos Ba)'
S1n Pedro
Bay
:a
-g
;;;
z
Pac ific Ocean
s a .... n N b :<>al
A n g so V
0 A na l1e im n g e c h 0 0
S n t A n M
0 Oce
0 Se"' 8-ach
Naton.:Jj
Wlkthfe Rtf1.1ge
Arohe 1m
Bat
Saratoga Ave
Constitution Ave
Old Ranch
CountryCklb
CA.22,w
Yorktown Ave
J01nt Forces
Tiain1ng
Cen\&r
B1rchi.YOod Ave
Almord Ave
WeSl lillllSlcr Blvd
N:1Val Weapons
Staton
·al Beach
t
!!I
Richmond
... ~ 'It
Ounro nrP(' ~
Bo,.

Che
,,.,. Loyola Ave
'I
u
:;;
"
~
f
"'
.~
~
"
Skyla
Argosy Ave
;;;
E
E
e
C)
s
~ E
,!
u
Pearce Dr ':
() Stantec
0 ID
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
!.
!.
!. !.
!.
!.
1 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
13 11
12 2
Z:\seal_beach\fig_3_housing_sites_v2.mxd Revised: 2023-11-14 By: KAEJOHNSON 3 City of Seal Beach
Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates
Initial Study
Seal Beach, CA
Prepared by KJ on 2023-11-14
Review by AR on 2023-11-14
Housing Opportunity Sites Map
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.

Notes

1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane
California V FIPS 0405 Feet

2. Data Sources:

Title
Project Location
Client/Project
Legend
!. Housing Opportunity Site
City of Seal Beach boundary
(At original document size of 8.5x11)
1:60,000 ($ $ ¯ 0 0.25 0.5
Miles

1. 1780 Pacific Coast Hwy

2. Leisure World

3. Accessory Dwelling Units*

4. Accurate Storage

5. The Shops at Rossmoor

6. Old Ranch Town Center

7. Seal Beach Plaza

8. Seal Beach Center

9. 99 Marina Drive

10. Old Ranch Country Club

11. Naval Weapons Station PCH & Seal Beach Blvd.

12. Water Storage Site (City Property Navy Base)

13. Main Street
Housing Opportunity Sites
* Sites for Accessory Dwelling Units are not depicted on the map.

The sites would be dispersed and located in any residential or mixed-use area by right.

City of Seal Beach
o St
rd
A ng
n g
Calrfo m1a
S t.::ite Unr•, ers 1ty·
Lo ng Be c h
VA Lo ng
Beac h
Hea lthc re
S Im
S 8...-n N b :<>al
V
0 A na l1e im
0 S n t A n M
0 Oce
0 ...
2 II)
0 u..

Rossmoor
nc h
r '"l untf)
C lub
Jo int Fo rces
Training
Ce nte r
CA -22 W--====::....-.J,,
Vv'estn111 ' ler Blvd
Naval W a p:,n
SL::lt n
Seal
Be c h
cl1
Na • Golf
Course
I
kyl11 Rd
Bolsa I
II
C
u5
r:;
--,
() Stantec

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Project Description
2-1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
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 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 City's latest RHNA allocation calls for 1,243 new housing units, including 459 new units for residents in the low- and very low-income categories.

The Housing Element Update identifies an inventory of Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City that have the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. 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. Of the 13 Housing Opportunity Sites, six would require rezoning, the two Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station sites would require a change of use, one is proposed for a Specific Plan, and one would require an amendment to the MSSP. 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 zone district would facilitate housing for lower-income households as required by the state’s RHNA allocation for the City and facilitate the inclusion of affordable units.

2.2 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
This Initial Study is prepared for the City 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 on August 24, 2023 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 housing units, which was distributed to all 197 SCAG jurisdictions (SCAG 2023). HCD compliance requires a demonstration by the City that it can meet its “fair share” of the RHNA allocation of 1,243 new housing units. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Project Description
2-2
The Housing Element Update includes the following components, as required by state law (City of Seal Beach 2022):
• 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.

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 housing 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. In addition, HCD recommends that cities identify a “buffer” of 15 to 30 percent above the stated RHNA allocation to account for “No Net Loss” provisions of Senate Bill (SB) 166, which requires that the land inventory and site identification programs in the Housing Element Update always include sufficient sites to accommodate the unmet RHNA. Based upon HCD’s buffer policy, Seal Beach must plan for a minimum of 1,430 new housing units. In its current iteration, the August 2023 Housing Element plans for 1,833 new housing units to be conservative in its approach to the RHNA and anticipating additional modifications may be required by HCD.

2.2.1 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 II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Project Description
2-3
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 implementation of a proposed Specific Plan which includes proposed housing and for which an independent Environmental Impact Report is being prepared; revisions to the existing MSSP to allow for second-story residential use; and rezoning a former oil extraction property to residential use, The actions described above would result in a change to the permitted uses and development standards on eight of the Housing Opportunity Sites to align with the densities identified in the Housing Opportunity Sites Residential Development Potential list (Table 4, below). In addition, the City has a unique circumstance with the two sites located on Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, where the Housing Element proposes a change in use, but the City has no zoning authority, therefore these sites will not be rezoned through the City’s Zoning Code but growth is nonetheless planned for in the Housing Element.

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.

2.3 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
SCAG has allocated the region’s 1,341,827 housing 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 housing units, which is distributed among four income categories, consisting of 258 very low-, 201 low-, 239 moderate-, and 545 above moderate-income units (SCAG 2021). II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Project Description
2-4

2.3.1 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 1, below.

Table 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 L-C/RMD Mixed Use Main Street Specific Plan MSSP Main Street Specific Plan Professional Office PO Professional Office
Service Commercial CS/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
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. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Project Description
2-5
Zoning Abbreviation General Plan Designation
Implemented by Zoning
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.

2.3.2 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 site inventory must rely primarily on non-vacant sites.

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.

Underutilized Sites
The Housing Opportunity Sites inventory consists of three underutilized sites with realistic potential for residential development and potential ADUs, as summarized in Table 2. The Housing Element proposes an increase in ADUs that may be located in any residential or mixed-use area by right. Though ADUs are exempt from CEQA, and their respective locations are unknown at this time, the Housing Element collectively refers to them as a “site” (Opportunity Site 3) in order to recognize the contribution they make to housing production as required by the Housing Element. Therefore, the potential ADU sites are identified as one collective Housing Opportunity Site resulting in a total of 13 identified Housing Opportunity Sites.

The City’s RHNA allocation for the current cycle calls for accommodating 1,243 new housing units at low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income levels. Of this total allocation, there are eight planned or recently approved ADUs that are anticipated for development, as well as currently planned or recently approved on underutilized sites, which can be counted towards the City’s overall unit requirement.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Project Description
2-6
Table 2: 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 10 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.

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. With the exception of the City-owned parcel on the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station which was an addition to the draft Housing Element following the withdrawal of a site owned by the County of Orange, the sites listed in Table 3 were also reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings, and property owners and other interested stakeholders had the opportunity to provide comments on sites that should be considered for additional residential development.

Site
No. Address/APN
General
Plan/
Zoning
Appro
x.

Acres
Existing
Onsite
Use(s)
Assum
ed
Density
(Dwelli
ng
Units
per
Acre)
LowerIncom
e
Dwelli
ng
Units
Moderat
eIncome
Dwellin
g Units
Above
Modera
teIncome
Dwellin
g Units
Total
Units
1 1780 Pacific
Coast Hwy
(APN 199-061-
01)
Limited
Commercial/
RMD-18

0.25 Older
convenienc
e store;
zoning
allows
mixed-use
20 -- 5 -- 5
2 Leisure World
(APN 095-691-
04)
Residential
High
Density –
Planned
Community

5.5 RV
Storage
30 74 38 38 150
3 Accessory
Dwelling Units
All
Residential
and MixedUse Zones
N/A Residential
and MixedUse Zones
N/A 36 14 -- 50
TOTAL 110 57 38 205
Source: City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, Redline August 24, 2023 (City of Seal Beach 2023a). II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Project Description
2-7
The City analyzed the most current parcel-level data to determine which sites were most appropriate for inclusion into the site 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 site inventory do not have existing uses that are impediments to housing development, an analysis was conducted to select sites that are most likely to develop during the planning period. Development likelihood and feasibility 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.

Table 3: Proposed Rezone Sites (Unless Military)
Site
No. Site Name
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
(APN)
Existing
Onsite
Use(s)
Approximate
Acres
Estimated
Developable
Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
4 Accurate
Storage
095-791-18 Vehicle and
boat storage
4 1.8 RHD-20 MC/RHD
5 The Shops at
Rossmoor
086-492-51 Retail, office,
fast food,
grocery and
pharmacy
27 10 GC MC/RHD
6 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 5 GC MC/RHD
7 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 2.5 CS-SC MC/RHD
II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Project Description
2-8
Site
No. Site Name
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
(APN)
Existing
Onsite
Use(s)
Approximate
Acres
Estimated
Developable
Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
8 Seal Beach
Center
043-260-
02, -05
Existing
commercial
center with
CVS
Pharmacy,
retail,
services,
restaurant,
and market
9 4 SC MC/RHD
9 99 Marina Drive 199-011-10 Former oil
separation
facility with
abandoned
handball
court

2.75 2 M N/A
13 Main Street *** 043-112-
21, -22, -
23, -28, -
29, -34, -
35, -36, -
41;
043-113-
04, -08, 14,
-15, -36, -
37, -42, -
46, -48, 51;
199-053-
18, -19, -
20, -21, -
22, -23, -
24, -25, -
26, -28, -
29, -30, -
31;
199-043-
10; -11, -
12, -13, -
14, -15, -
Existing
Main Street
Specific Plan
commercial
district,
including
retail,
services,
offices,
parking
areas,
restaurants
and bars,
theater,
medical
offices, plant
nursery and
other shops
and retailers
15 N/A MSSP MSSP
II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Project Description
2-9
Site
No. Site Name
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
(APN)
Existing
Onsite
Use(s)
Approximate
Acres
Estimated
Developable
Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
16, -17, -
18, -19, -
20;
199-033-
02;
199-034-
01, -02, 03,
-04, -05, -
06, -07, -
08, -09, -
10, -11, -
12, -13, -
14, -15, -
16, -17, -
36;
199-044-
19, -20, -
21, -22, -
23, -24, -
25, -26, -
27, -28, -
29, -30, -
31, -32, -
33, -34
Source: City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, August 2023.

2.3.3 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 II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Project Description
2-10
at each of the Housing Opportunity Sites. A description of the Housing Opportunity Sites is provided below, as taken from the August 24, 2023 Housing Element Update (City of Seal Beach 2023a).

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.

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. The site is immediately adjacent to housing, with access to goods and services.

Assumed Development Capacity: This zoning designation allows residential use at up to 20 units per acre. The site can reasonably accommodate a ground floor commercial use and parking, with five second-story housing units. Because of its small size, this parcel has been listed in the moderate-income site inventory, as shown in Table 4, below.

Site 2 – Leisure World (No Rezoning)
Location: Leisure World is a large, high-density residential senior community generally bound by Westminster Boulevard, 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 mile from the southwestern corner of the community.

Size: 5.5 acres
Current Use: Recreational vehicle storage
Current Zoning: Residential High Density–Planned Development (RHD-PD) Reason For Selection: The underutilized site is located in a community that, while not income-restricted, offers a variety of affordable housing options with more than 75 percent of the population in Leisure World consisting of low- to moderate-income households. The existing site zoning allows for residential highdensity development.

Assumed Development Capacity: An additional 150 units can be accommodated at a density of 30 units per acre on approximately 5 acres presently devoted to recreational vehicle storage. As 75 percent of the population in Leisure World currently consists of low- to moderate-income households, Table 4, II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Project Description
2-11
below, projects half of the units as lower-income, one quarter at moderate, and the balance at market to be conservative.

Site 3 – Accessory Dwelling Units (No Rezoning)
Location: Throughout the City, in all residential and mixed-use zones.

Current Zoning: All Residential and Mixed-Use Zones
Reason For Selection: ADUs represent a significant opportunity for affordable housing, particularly for single persons or small households including the elderly, college students, young adults, and caregivers.

Assumed Development Capacity: While interest in ADUs has not historically been high in Seal Beach, recent changes to state law have increased awareness and interest. It has conservatively been assumed that 50 ADUs will be built during this planning cycle. Given that ADUs can introduce low-income units in high resource areas, the City would undertake a number of steps to promote the development of ADUs and consider development of incentives to make ADUs affordable to very low-income households. The City would monitor the effectiveness of its efforts twice a year and make adjustments as necessary.

SCAG conducted a regional survey and reported the results in August 2020. SCAG’s research supports an assumption that 73 percent of ADUs could be affordable to lower-income households in the County (even assuming a 50/50 mix of one- and two-person households). Evidence from other jurisdictions throughout California indicates that between 17 and 50 percent of ADUs may be rent-free as the property owners provide housing for their adult children and/or aging parents. The inventory in Table 4, below, implements SCAG’s assumption of 73 percent of units at lower-income, and the balance at moderateincome.

Site 4 – 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.

Size: 4.4 acres
Current Use: Self storage facility
Current Zoning: High Density Residential (RHD-20)
Reason For Selection: This site has been selected as a candidate housing site due to underutilized parking onsite, its proximity to services, and interest from the property owner. There are no known environmental constraints on this property, and the site has access to employment and transit routes.

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 I/L ratio 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 II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Project Description
2-12
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 MC/RHD, allowing a density of 46 units per acre, yielding up to 83 units, or more if a density bonus is employed. However, given the existing onsite buildings and the resulting limitations to development design, the projected number of units has been reduced to 59. Because the presumed developable area is less than two acres, Table 4, below, projects 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 5 – 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.

Size: 27 acres
Current Use: Retail center, with uses including Marshalls, Kohl’s, Ulta, Sprouts Farmers Market, and Burlington
Current Zoning: General Commercial (CG)
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 I/L ratio is less than 1.0 (0.85), meaning the site is economically underutilized, despite being a generally successful retail center. A new mixed-use zone would allow for greater flexibility to utilize the land. High-density residential uses are located adjacent to the property to the west, as such the site’s proposed high-density use would be consistent with surrounding uses.

Assumed Development Capacity: The site is 27 acres, and surface parking occupies approximately 19 acres. It is assumed that 10 of the acres could be developed with housing. This site is proposed for rezoning to MC/RHD, allowing a density of 46 units per acre, yielding up to 460 units, exclusive of a density bonus. Because of the ample development potential, Table 4, below, projects 25 percent of units at lower-income, 25 percent at moderate-income, and the balance at market rate.

Site 6 – 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.

Size: 26 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 II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Project Description
2-13
as it is immediately adjacent to goods and services, has access along a major thoroughfare, and can integrate with the scale of the existing development. The I/L ratio ranges by parcel, with the largest parcel at 0.95 and the second largest parcel at 0.07.

Assumed Development Capacity: It is assumed 20 percent of the center could be developed or redeveloped with housing uses. This site is proposed for rezoning to MC/RHD, allowing a density of 46 units per acre, yielding up to 239 units. Because of the development potential, Table 4, below, projects 25 percent of units at lower-income, 25 percent at moderate-income, and the balance at market.

Site 7 – Seal Beach Plaza (Rezoning Required)
Location: This multi-address retail center is at the northwest corner of Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Boulevard. Two churches and Leisure World are to the north and west, and generally the Naval Weapons Station surrounds the other sides.

Size: 7 acres
Current Use: Retail and office/service uses.

Current Zoning: Service Commercial (SC)
Reason For Selection: This site’s I/L ratio is less than 1.0 (0.72). Similar to other retail plazas, the site is underutilized with large parking areas. The site offers access to goods and services. The site is located adjacent to Leisure World where existing development is high-density.

Assumed Development Capacity: This site can be redeveloped entirely or partially as a mixed-use project; however, it is assumed that residential uses would be developed on 2.5 acres of the site. This site is proposed for rezoning to MC/RHD, allowing a density of 46 units per acre, yielding up to 115 units.

However, due to the smaller developable area, Table 4, below, conservatively estimates 10 percent of units at lower-income, 10 percent at moderate-income, and 80 percent at market rate.

Site 8 – 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 Pacific Coast Highway from Main Street.

Size: 9 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 I/L ratio less than 1.0 (0.72), indicating it is underutilized and could perform to a higher capacity. Its location provides walkability and access to goods and services, including an elementary school. A small mixed-use project could be undertaken using available parking II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Project Description
2-14
and redeveloping portions of the site with housing above retail. The property representatives have expressed an interest in mixed-use development as a future possibility to increase site utility.

Assumed Development Capacity: It is assumed that residential uses would be developed on 4.5 acres of the site. This site is proposed for rezoning to MC/RHD, allowing a density of 46 units per acre, yielding up 207 units, without using a density bonus. However, because the site is adjacent to low-density singlefamily use, and greater setbacks or step-backs may be appropriate in the revised zoning code, a lower development threshold of 120 units and 4 acres of developable area is assumed. While four acres is ample development capacity, because this opportunity site is directly across the street from single-family homes, Table 4, below, conservatively estimates 15 percent of the units at lower-income levels, 15 percent at moderate-income, and the balance at market despite being zoned at 46 units per acre.

Site 9 – 99 Marina (Rezoning Required)
Location: 99 Marina Drive, northeast of Marina Drive and First Street intersection.

Size: 4.3 acres
Current Use: Vacant. A handball court is located on the western edge of the property and the City maintains a small section of the property around the court as the court is located adjacent to a public park.

Current Zoning: Oil Extraction (OE)
Reason For Selection: Oil extraction activities at the site no longer occur and the current property owners (Exxon and Chevron) are actively marketing the property. City staff has received inquiries on the property from potential buyers and support of residential development at the site, from the community.

Additionally, the site is surrounded by existing residential uses.

Assumed Development Capacity: A density of 33 units per acre is proposed at this site to meet the default density thresholds established under Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)). However, this location may have additional development standards imposed by the California Coastal Commission, similar to the adjacent development, where a portion of the site was left as open space. Thus, the total housing production anticipated at the site is 90 units, all of which are conservatively assumed to be above moderate-income.

Site 10 – Old Ranch Country Club (Rezoning/Land Use Change Required; Specific Plan Required)
Location: The entire facility, approximately 155 acres in size, is located north of Lampson Avenue, and south of the Joint Forces Training Base and Old Ranch Town Center, just east of Seal Beach Boulevard.

The proposed housing sites are located along the western edge of the property, one near the intersection of Lampson Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard, and the other further south, across Lampson Avenue from the Ivy Park assisted living facility.

Size: 155 acres II
2-15

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Project Description
Current Use: Golf course and supporting amenities.

Current Zoning: Recreation Golf (RG)
Reason For Selection: At this time, the landowner has a development application in process with the City for the development of 116 family units and 51 senior units.

Assumed Development Capacity: As this is an active development application, the numbers proposed by the property owner are now the assumed development, for a total of 167 units. All units have been assumed at above moderate-income levels. The existing development application is for a specific plan, which would guide development of the housing as well as a hotel and modifications to the existing clubhouse and golf facilities. An EIR is being prepared for the proposed development. Approval of a specific plan is a discretionary action by the City Council. A new development agreement between the developer and the property owner is expected to be a part of the development application that will ultimately be considered by the City.

Site 11 – Naval Weapons Station PCH & Seal Beach Boulevard (Zoning Not Applicable) Location: Within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, fronting Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard.

Size: 22 acres
Current Use: Military use; the site is mostly vacant except for a concrete training pad and a 960 square foot prefabricated metal building used as a classroom.

Current Zoning: Military (M)
Reason For Selection: This site was selected in collaboration with the U.S. Navy (Navy), which successfully requested letters of interest to develop this site. The Navy’s vision includes uses that would serve military personnel, including the potential for housing. The Navy has already initiated environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This site is generally undeveloped and is under singular ownership. The site is located in proximity to goods and services, including an elementary school. A mixed-use development, including housing, is generally anticipated, and assumes 150 residential units in a vertical and/or horizontal mixed-use development. These assumptions were arrived at in cooperation with Navy representatives. Because census data shows lower-income levels at the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station currently, Table 4, below, assumes one-third of the units at lower-income, one-third at moderate-income, and one-third at above moderate-income. Despite being within the City, this is federal property; therefore, the City has no zoning authority over this area.

Site 12 – Water Storage Site (City Property Navy Base) (Zoning Not Applicable) Location: Within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, approximately 1,000 feet east of Seal Beach Boulevard, near the housing community off Anchor Way.

Size: 2.75 acres II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Project Description
2-16
Current Use: Water and equipment storage
Current Zoning: Military (M)
Reason For Selection: This parcel is owned by the City of Seal Beach. While the water storage facility is in active use and needs to remain in use, the balance of the site has comparably minimal utility. As a part of the Housing Element process, the City looked for opportunities to leverage property it owns. This parcel has capacity for greater utilization. Potential development of the site has been presented to Navy staff. Presently, the Navy is amenable to considering a project that could benefit both the Navy and the City, such as affordable housing for veterans.

Assumed Development Capacity: Depending on the exact size and configuration of the parcel, at least 65 units could be accommodated on a parcel of approximately two acres. Presumed to be an affordable housing development, 50 of the units are assumed to be at lower-income levels and 15 of the units at moderate-income, as shown in Table 4, below.

Site 13 – Main Street Specific Plan Area (Specific Plan Amendment Required) Location: The Main Street Specific Plan area covers is the traditional downtown commercial core of Old Town, primarily defined by Main Street.

Size: 21 acres
Current Use: Mixed-use, including retail, offices, micro-scale manufacturing, and residential.

Current Zoning: Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP)
Reason For Selection: The area provides for a pedestrian-oriented mix of offices and retail uses with some residential units, which were built prior to adoption of the MSSP. Because Main Street is already developed as a pedestrian friendly area surrounded by residential neighborhoods, existing uses would not be an impediment to the expansion of residential units in this area.

Assumed Development Capacity: Although the area could accommodate a sizable number of residential units if the area is redeveloped, it is recognized that such redevelopment is very unlikely to occur during this planning period. Consolidation of lots under fragmented ownership would be challenging. A two-story height limit has been imposed in this area by voters, further affecting redevelopment opportunities. However, some parcels could accommodate one or more units towards the rear of the lot and/or above an existing single-story retail building. Space exists on some sites to develop units over open parking areas, as well. A physical inventory of the area revealed potential to accommodate 163 units if the City allows a minimum unit size standard of approximately 400 square feet.

The proposed MSSP amendment would allow for residential uses on second stories or fronting rear alleys, such that Main Street itself remains a retail environment. At these small sizes, these uses would be ancillary, most akin to accessory dwelling units and, therefore, have income-levels have been categorized the same way, with 73 percent at lower-income levels and the balance at moderate-income, as shown in Table 4, below. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Project Description
2-17

2.3.4 Housing Opportunity Sites Residential Development Potential As shown in Table 4, below, redevelopment of underutilized sites and addition of ADUs could result in a total of approximately 205 new housing units, and potential rezone parcels could accommodate a total of approximately 1,628 new housing units. Based on this, by implementing the Project, the City would be able to provide 1,833 additional housing units, thereby accommodating the 2021-2029 RHNA allocation (1,243 new housing units) and a substantive buffer to demonstrate capacity for all income levels. The residential site development potential is shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Housing Opportunity Sites Residential Development Potential Site No. Site Name
Potential
Density
(Dwelling
Units per
Acre)
Lower-Income
Dwelling Units
ModerateIncome
Dwelling
Units
Above
ModerateIncome
Dwelling Units
Total Units
Underutilized Sites
1 1780 Pacific
Coast
Highway
20 -- 5 -- 5
2 Leisure
World
30 74 38 38 150
3 Accessory
Dwelling
Units
N/A 36 14 -- 50
Total Units from Underutilized
Sites
-- 110 57 38 205
Rezoned Sites (Unless Military)
4 Accurate
Storage
46 6 6 47 59
5 The Shops
at
Rossmoor
46 115 115 230 460
6 Old Ranch
Town
Center
46 59 59 121 239
7 Seal Beach
Plaza
46 12 12 91 115
8 Seal Beach
Center
46 15 15 90 120
9 99 Marina
Drive
33 -- -- 90 90
10 Old Ranch
Country
Club
-- -- -- 167 167
11 Naval
Weapons
Station PCH
30 50 50 50 150
II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Project Description
2-18
Site No. Site Name
Potential
Density
(Dwelling
Units per
Acre)
Lower-Income
Dwelling Units
ModerateIncome
Dwelling
Units
Above
ModerateIncome
Dwelling Units
Total Units
& Seal
Beach Blvd.
12 Water
Storage Site
(City
Property
Navy Base)
33 50 15 -- 65
13 Main Street N/A 117 46 -- 163
Total Units from Proposed
Rezoning
-- 424 318 886 1,628
Total Units including
Underutilized Sites, ADUs,
and Rezone
534 375 924 1,833
Source: City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, August 2023.

Notes: The current MU is only associated with LC/RMD. A new mixed-use zoning designation would need to be created to facilitate a density equivalent to RHD-46.

Potential units based on estimated development area.

The City's latest RHNA allocation calls for 1,243 new housing 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.

2.4 SCHEDULE
Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would generally occur during the same time frame of the Housing Element Update, which is from 2021 through 2029.

2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
Anticipated permits, approvals, and consultations include, but are not limited to, the actions described in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Agency Permits and Environmental Review Requirements Agency Permits and Other Approvals
City of Seal Beach • 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 / Specific Plan Amendment
II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Project Description
2-19
Agency Permits and Other Approvals
• Seal Beach Municipal Code, Zoning Code
Amendment
II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-1

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, ANALYSIS, AND MITIGATION

MEASURES

INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
As defined by Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study is prepared primarily to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for determining whether an EIR, Negative Declaration, or Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropriate for providing the necessary environmental documentation and clearance for any proposed Project.

According to Section 15065, an EIR is deemed appropriate for a particular proposal if the following conditions occur:
• The proposal has the potential to substantially degrade quality of the environment. • The proposal has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
• The proposal has possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.
• The proposal could cause direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings.

According to Section 15070(a), a Negative Declaration is deemed appropriate if the proposal would not result in any significant effect on the environment.

According to Section 15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration is deemed appropriate if it is determined that though a proposal could result in a significant effect, mitigation measures are available to reduce these significant effects to insignificant levels.

This Initial Study has determined that the proposed applications will result in potentially significant environmental impacts and therefore, an EIR is deemed as the appropriate document to provide necessary environmental evaluations and clearance for the proposed Project.

This Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP) are prepared in conformance with the CEQA of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21000 et. seq.); Section 15070 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA of 1970, as amended (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et. seq.); applicable requirements of the County; and the regulations, requirements, and procedures of any other responsible public agency or an agency with jurisdiction by law.

The City is the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section 15050 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for approving the necessary environmental clearances and analyses for any project in the City. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-2
Intended Uses of Initial Study and Notice of Preparation This Initial Study and NOP are informational documents intended to inform decision makers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the general public of potential environmental effects of the proposed changes. The environmental review process has been established to enable public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially adverse impacts. While CEQA requires that consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage, the Lead Agency and other responsible public agencies must balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, including economic and social goals. The Initial Study and NOP prepared for the Project will be circulated for a period of 30 days for public and agency review and comments, to facilitate preparation of the EIR.

Environmental Assessment Methodology
The environmental factors checked below would potentially be affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ☒ Aesthetics ☒ Greenhouse Gases ☒ Public Services
☐ Agricultural and Forestry
Resources
☒ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
☒ Recreation
☒ Air Quality ☒ Hydrology and Water
Quality
☒ Transportation
☒ Biological Resources ☒ Land Use and Planning ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources ☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Mineral Resources ☒ Utilities and Service Systems ☒ Energy Resources ☒ Noise ☐ Wildfires
☒ Geology and Soils ☒ Population and Housing ☒ Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination
Based on this initial evaluation:

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

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

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

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “Potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An □
□
□
IJ

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be add/]/ ,/
~ -- !f /(L{/~&:3
Signature
Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director
City of Seal Beach
Date
3-3

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-4

3.1 AESTHETICS

AESTHETICS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 20199:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project
substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings. (Public Views are those that are
experienced from a publicly accessible vantage
point). If the Project is in an urbanized area, the
potential of the project to conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?

3.1.1 Environmental Setting
As described in the City of Seal Beach 2003 General Plan (General Plan), visual resources in the City include 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. As the Project implementation would result in future development and more dense residential uses in the vicinity of the coastal waterfront, potential impacts to aesthetics are evaluated below.

3.1.2 Environmental Impact Analysis
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: Less than Significant Impact
Scenic vistas generally include extensive panoramic views of natural features, unusual terrain, or unique urban or historic features, for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance, and focal views that focus on a particular object, scene or feature of interest. The General Plan does not identify or designate specific scenic resources; nor are there any specific policies related preservation of scenic resources. However, several of the Housing Opportunity Sites are in proximity to the Pacific Ocean and open space areas, which can be considered scenic vistas. A substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista would occur where the majority of an existing view would be blocked or substantially interrupted. □ □ ~ □
□ □ □ ~
~ □ □ □
□ □ ~ □

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-5
Individual developments that would be developed on the identified Housing Opportunity Sites under the Housing Element Update would be dispersed throughout the City and would be located in areas that are highly urbanized with surrounding existing developments that already limit potential views to scenic resources. Individual developments developed under the Housing Element Update would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with the development standards of the applicable zoning district, including building heights, setbacks, and appropriate placement of buildings. Adherence to the City’s design guidelines and standards would minimize and reduce potential impacts to existing views and scenic resources. Implementation of the Project would not result in substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Finding: No Impact
According to the California State Scenic Highway Project, which is administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (Caltrans 2022), there are no state-designated scenic highways located in the City; nor are there any City-designated scenic highways or roadways identified by the City in its General Plan. The closest state-designated scenic highway is State Route (SR) 91, between the city limits of Anaheim and SR 55 to the south, and it is the only state-designated scenic highway within the entire County. The closest Housing Opportunity Site is approximately 14 miles southwest of this portion of SR 91. Implementation of the Project would not occur within the vicinity of state scenic highways and would not substantially damage scenic resources, such as trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings, within a state scenic highway, and there would be no impact in this regard. As such this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR.
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. (Public Views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the Project is in an urbanized area, the potential of the project to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the Housing Element Update 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 meet its RHNA allocation. Additionally, implementation of the Housing Element Update would result in the creation of a new zoning district that would be applied to five of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites and one site identified as a Housing Opportunity Site would be rezoned to an existing zoning district to accommodate housing. As such, future residential development associated with Project implementation would occur within urbanized areas of the City. Although future Project implementation would not include development on previously undeveloped areas that are not surrounded by urbanization, some of the Housing Opportunity Sites proposed for future residential II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-6
development could affect areas that are along the City’s interface with coastal or open space areas.

Additionally, future Project implementation could include the development of new infrastructure which may have the have the potential to alter the existing visual character of the area. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Typical current sources of light and glare throughout the City include interior and exterior building lighting, illuminated signage, ballfield lighting, lighting from vehicles along existing roadways, and other ambient lighting present in urbanized settings. Sources of glare include glass or metallic surfaces or finishes, on structures and even off of vehicle windshields, that could cause glare effects. Some of the more suburban, lower density, or open space areas of the City have less sources of illumination, lighting and glare. Implementation of the proposed Project would occur in areas designated for redevelopment and would allow for development of currently underutilized parcels in the City. Many of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located within currently illuminated areas.

While the increased residential density associated with Project implementation would likely introduce new sources of light and glare in their immediate surroundings, all new development would be required to comply City guidelines and Municipal Code requirements, including Chapter 11.4.10.020, related to exterior security lighting, exterior fixture compatibility, outdoor illumination levels, minimization of light spillover and glare, and light standard heights (City of Seal Beach 2021).

As future residential development resulting from Project implementation would adhere to the provisions of the Municipal Code and all other applicable regulations related to light and glare, the increased residential density proposed by the Project would not create substantial new sources of light or glare which would adversely affect views in the area. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, and this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-7

3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?

3.2.1 Environmental Setting
As outlined in the Open Space/Recreation/Conservation Element of the General Plan, open space land is defined as any parcel of land or water that is essentially unimproved and is devoted to open space use.

Land which is used as managed production of resources is protected under the Element. Within the City, certain parcels of land principally within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station are being used for agricultural production. Approximately 2,000 acres of the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station are currently used for the production of staple vegetable crops, such as beets, carrots, and corn (City of Seal Beach 2003). Additionally, according to the Department of Conservation’s (DOC’s) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), prime and unique farmland are identified within the City’s boundaries specifically within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. The other portions of the City are mapped as Urban and Built-Up Land or Other (DOC 2023a). FMMP defines Other Lands as Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than forty acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land (DOC 2023a). According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Production (CAL FIRE), there are no Timber Production Zones designations or Timber Harvesting Plans within the City (CAL FIRE 2023b).
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-8

3.2.2 Environmental Impact Analysis
a) Would the project 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? Finding: No Impact
As mentioned above, the Prime and Unique Farmland categories are mapped in areas of the City; however, these mapped areas are limited to the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station property. Housing Opportunity Sites 11 and 12 are located within the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station; however, the portions of the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station property where Sites 11 and 12 are located are mapped as Urban and Built-Up Land and Other Land on the FMMP. No other proposed Housing Opportunity Sites were identified on the FMMP as being located on Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Implementation of the Project does not have the potential to cause significant impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, nor does it have the potential to convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural use. Therefore, there would be no impact, and this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Finding: No Impact
According to the City’s Zoning Map Index and Orange County’s Public Works Land Records Map, none of the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites are under a Williamson Contract and therefore, there would be no impact related to conflicting with a Williamson Act contract. (City of Seal Beach 2013; Orange County 2023).

The City’s Zoning Code does not include any agricultural land use designations. However, some of the City’s commercial, industrial, and open space zoning designation allow agricultural uses onsite. Agricultral uses allowed in the City are mostly limited to nursery uses, with crop raising allowed under one open space zoning designation. As the City does not have any zoning designations that are specifically for agricultural uses, implementation of the Project would not result in conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use. Additionally, none of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites that is not proposed for rezoning are under existing zoning designation that allow agricultural uses onsite. The identified Housing Opportunity Sites that are proposed for rezoning would be rezoned to residential zoning districts to allow for additional housing opportunities in the City and would not conflict with any agricultural zoned parcels.

Implementation of the Project does not have the potential conflict with any existing zoning for agricultural use. As such, there would be no impact, and this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-9
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
Finding: No Impact
As discussed above, there are no designated Timber Production Zones or agriculturally designated parcels within the Housing Opportunity Sites. Implementation of the Project does not have the potential to conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland zoned for Timberland Production. As such, there would be no impact, and this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Finding: No Impact
As discussed above, the parcels proposed for rezoning have various designations, and there are no forest lands located on or near the Project area. Therefore, development of the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses, and there would be no impact. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. e) Would the project 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?
Finding: No Impact
Development of the Project would require rezoning of the Project area to accommodate low- and moderate-income residential uses in areas throughout the City. As discussed above, none of the Housing Opportunity Sites are zoned for agricultural use, and important farmland was not identified amongst the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites. Although the Project involves rezoning to accommodate additional housing needs, the Project would not involve rezoning from agricultural to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. As such, there would be no impact, and this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-10

3.3 AIR QUALITY

AIR QUALITY
Would the Project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) 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?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?

3.3.1 Environmental Setting
The City is within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which includes all of Orange County and the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernadino Counties. SoCAB is designated nonattainment for ozone (O3) and fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5) under the California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS), nonattainment for lead (Los Angeles County only) under the National AAQS, and nonattainment for coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10) under the California AAQS (City of Corona 2019).

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for preparing the air quality management plan (AQMP) for the SoCAB in coordination with SCAG to attain the National AAQS. In March 2017, SCAQMD adopted the 2016 AQMP which is composed of stationary and mobile-source emission reductions from regulatory control measures, incentive-based programs, co-benefits from climate programs, mobile-source strategies, and reductions from federal sources such as aircrafts, locomotives, and ocean-going vessels. Strategies outlined in the 2016 AQMP would be implemented in collaboration between California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP forecasts that the SoCAB will need to increase oxides of nitrogen (NOx) reductions by 45 percent additional reductions above existing regulations for the 2023 ozone standard and 55 percent additional reductions above existing regulations to meet the 2031 ozone standard.

3.3.2 Environmental Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
As result of increased development and densification associated with future Project implementation, emissions would be generated during both construction and operation of individual developments. Project IZI □ □ □
IZI □ □ □
IZI □ □ □
IZI □ □ □

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-11
implementation has the potential to cause significant environmental effects through conflict or obstruction of the applicable air quality plans. Therefore, these impacts will be analyzed further in the EIR. b) Would the project 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?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
The proposed Housing Opportunity Sites are located in a non-attainment area for National AAQS and California AAQS. As such, Project implementation has the potential to cause significant environmental effects through a potential cumulatively considerable net increase of particulate matter during construction. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
While it is unlikely that sensitive receptors could be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations, due to construction or operation associated with future Project implementation, there is the potential to cause significant environmental effects if such exposure were to occur. Implementation of the proposed Project would include the development and operation of new and more intense land uses that could generate new sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the City, from both stationary and mobile sources. As such, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
Project implementation could cause the generation of new sources of odors or other emissions.

Generally, residential land uses do not generate odors that could affect a substantial number of people, because they are not considered a typical odor-producing source, such as a waste treatment facility or an industrial operation. While it is unlikely that substantial numbers of people could be adversely affected by odors due to future construction or implementation of the proposed Project, there is the potential for the Project to result in other emissions. Therefore, these potentially significant impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-12

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or regulated by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?

3.4.1 Environmental Setting
The western edge of the City includes shoreline, beaches and marinas which support areas of biological diversity. The Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), established in 1972, is a protected wetland and marsh area located at the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. It includes habitats that are essential to migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway, including federal- and state-listed endangered species. The Seal Beach NWR is under a Management Plan to 1) preserve habitat necessary for the perpetuation of two endangered species, the light-footed Ridgway’s rail and the California least tern, and 2) preservation of habitat used by migratory waterfowl, shorebirds and other waterbirds (USFWS 2023a). Other species of concern found in the Seal Beach NWR 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 a number of winter migration species as well, including Canada, snow and Ross’ geese, various duck species, black-necked stilt, American avocet, black-bellied plover, and least and western sandpipers. Additionally, many ~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
□ □ ~ □
~ □ □ □

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-13
California native wildflowers and shrubs occur in this area. Within the aquatic reaches of the wetlands, there can be small rays and sharks along the protected waters of the Seal Beach NWR (USFWS 2023b).

In addition to the Seal Beach NWR, another area with potential sensitivity for biological resources is approximately 100-acres of the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area, which has been deed-restricted for future sale to a public agency for purposes of wetlands restoration, open space, and environmental education purposes. An adjacent approximately 50-acre oil production property has been similarly restricted (City of Seal Beach 2003). Numerous other parks, golf courses, greenbelts and open space corridors provide potential habitat areas for various plant, insect, bird, reptile and animal species.

Due to its location along the shore of the Pacific Ocean, development and certain land use policies within the Coastal Zone (all areas south of Westminster Boulevard) are also subject to review by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for consistency with the California Coastal Act of 1976. The City is in the process of developing a Local Coastal Program (LCP) which will implement the Coastal Act at the local level, and reduce the need for direct project review from the Coastal Commission.

3.4.2 Environmental Impact Analysis
a) 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 regulated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
The Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of low- and moderate-income housing and therefore, does not directly result in development. Certification of the Project itself would not lead to alteration or modification biological resources or habitats, and before any development or redevelopment activities could occur on Housing Opportunity Sites, they would be required to be analyzed for conformance with the requirements of CEQA. While some of the Project’s identified Housing Opportunity Sites are located within highly urbanized areas, such as parking lots of existing commercial centers, other Housing Opportunity Sites are located in proximity to or within areas that are not developed or near areas of potential sensitivity for biological resources, such as Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 9, 10, 11 and 12. As such, future implementation of the Project may have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly, on special-status species. Therefore, these potentially significant impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR. b) Would the project 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? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
As discussed above, portions of the City are located within the jurisdiction of the CCC. Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 are located within CCC jurisdiction, while Housing Opportunity II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-14
Sites 2 and 7 border the CCC jurisdictional boundaries (City of Seal Beach 2023b). Housing Opportunity Site 11 borders the Seal Beach NWR. As such, future implementation of the Project may have a substantial adverse effect on a riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations. Therefore, these potentially significant impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR.
c) Would the project 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?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
As discussed above, the City has identified areas where wetlands and other sensitive marsh and coastal features are present, including within the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan area, the Seal Beach NWR, and the beaches and shorelines along the western border of the City. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to minimize effects to wetlands, marshes and coastal areas, in compliance with the CCC and all other applicable requirements; however, several Housing Opportunity Sites may be located within proximity or within such areas and may have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands. Therefore, these potentially significant impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR.
d) Would the project 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? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
As described above, the City and County have identified areas where native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species regularly occur, including the Seal Beach NWR. Housing Opportunity Sites 11 and 12 are in the vicinity of the Seal Beach NWR, an important stop for migratory species along the Pacific Flyway, and Housing Opportunity Site 10 is located on a golf course which may be used by migratory species.

Half of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located within the CCC jurisdiction and/or in proximity to the shoreline and beaches. As future residential development resulting from Project implementation would occur in proximity of areas, potential impacts to migratory species may occur. Therefore, these potentially significant impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Future residential development on identified Housing Opportunity Sites resulting from Project implementation may require the removal of trees, including street trees. All resulting development would be required to comply with the City Municipal Code Section 9.40, Trees, which includes limitations and permit requirements related to the removal of trees, particularly eucalyptus trees (City of Seal Beach II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-15
2023e). Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to abide by this regulation and ensure the Project does not lead to removal of designated landmark trees.

Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not conflict with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, and there would be no impact. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
This Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of low- and moderate-income housing and therefore, it does not directly result in development. Certification of the Project itself would not lead to alteration or modification biological resources or habitats, and before any development or redevelopment activities could occur on Housing Opportunity Sites, they would be required to be analyzed for conformance with the requirements of CEQA. In addition to being located under CCC jurisdiction, the City is also included in the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP)/Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) (CDFW 2023). Protected natural communities under the OCTA NCCP/HCP include California walnut woodland, canyon live oak ravine forest, Riversidean alluvial fan scrub, southern coast live oak riparian forest, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, southern mixed riparian forest, southern will scrub and valley needlegrass grassland (CDFW 2013). Further evaluation is required to confirm that there would be no conflicts with these or other plans. Therefore, these potentially significant impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-16

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
CULTURAL and TRIBAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section
15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?

3.5.1 Environmental Setting
For over 10,000 years, the Seal Beach area, including Anaheim Bay and the San Gabriel estuary, have supported Native American people and their cultures, with evidence of the City’s past found in the archaeological record and remaining historical sites; however, few archaeological sites remain in the City, primarily due to development along the coastline. As provided in the City’s General Plan Cultural Resources Element, prehistoric occupation of the Seal Beach area was associated with the Gabrielino Native Americans, with the city on the southern end of the extensive tribal territory which extended into Ventura County to the north and San Bernardino County to the east (City of Seal Beach 2003). It is also understood that the Juaneño Native Americans were also present in the Seal Beach area, as the neighboring tribe to the south.

More specifically, the Gabrielino community of Motuuchey was located in today’s Old Town area, and archaeological resources were primarily located on the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, Hellman Ranch and potentially on a Boeing property. In the 1780s, the historic settlement of the city began with the assignment of a 300,000-acre land grant of Rancho Los Alamitos, which supported agriculture and cattle grazing due to proximity to the Santa Ana River. The Mexican War of 1846 to 1848 marked the end of the Rancho era and Mexican governance, and in 1864, Rancho Los Alamitos was purchased by Jotham Bixby and German immigrants who formed the Anaheim agricultural colony. Anaheim Landing was the port created to facilitate goods movement in and out of the region and was the first port in Orange County.

The area transitioned into the resort community of “Bay City,” in 1903, and was connected to Los Angeles with the “Red Cars” of the Pacific Electric Railroad. Today, an historic Red Car can be found on the old Pacific Electric right-of-way. In 1906, the longest pier south of San Francisco was constructed, and it included a bath house, dancing pavilion, roller coaster and more. With a population of 250, Bay City was incorporated in 1915, becoming known as Seal Beach, and the town was a successful resort community by the 1920s. A flurry of growth and development ended with the Great Depression, and in 1939, hurricane winds cut the pier in half. World War II brought a second boom of construction to the City, as military facilities were placed throughout the City and the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station was built.

IZI □ □ □
IZI □ □ □
□ □ IZI □

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-17
The development of Leisure World began in the late 1950s. With a current population of over 24,000, the City remains a tourist destination.

Historic resources in the City include the Old City Hall, which is on the National Register of Historic Places. The early port of Anaheim Landing is recognized for its historical significance by the State of California.

The City’s General Plan Cultural Resources Element includes the following goal and policies related to cultural resources (City of Seal Beach 2003):

Goal 1: Preserve and protect historical, archaeological and paleontological resources. • Policy 1: Balance the benefits of development with the project’s potential impacts to existing cultural resources.
• Policy 2: Identify, designate, and protect sites and buildings of historic importance. • Policy 3: Coordinate cultural resource programs and development project review with affected resource agencies and Native American representatives.
• Policy 4: Identify funding programs to assist private and public property owners in the preservation of buildings and sites of historic importance. • Policy 5: Assess development proposals for potential impacts to significant archaeological resources pursuant to §15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Require a study conducted by a professional archaeologist for all development proposals located in areas known to be sensitive to cultural resources.

3.5.2 Environmental Impact Analysis
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as identified in Section 15064.5?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
This Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of low- and moderate-income housing, and therefore, it does not directly result in development. Certification of the Project itself would not lead to demolition or alteration of any historic resources. Furthermore, future development Projects would be required to comply with the City’s General Plan Cultural Resources policies related to preservation of resources. As it is unknown if Housing Opportunity Sites may contain historical resources, surveys will be conducted to determine and assess potential impacts to such resources. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-18
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
As discussed above, approval of the proposed Project itself would not directly affect archaeological resources as the Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of low- and moderate-income housing and therefore, does not directly result in development. However, Project implementation could indirectly affect archaeological resources, as it would allow for future development of the sites. Grading and construction activities of parcels identified for the Project could require earth moving activities that could potentially unearth previously unrecorded resources.

According to the General Plan Cultural Resources Element, there are very few archaeological sites in the City. Archaeological sites are protected by a wide variety of state policies and regulations under the California Public Resources Code, and cultural resources receive protection under both the California Public Resources Code and CEQA. Long term implementation of the Project could allow development including construction activities and grading in areas with undiscovered archaeological resources.

Therefore, the Project could result in potential unearthing of previously unknown and unrecorded archaeological resources and result in significant impacts. The Project would be required to implement General Plan Cultural Resources Element policies related to reducing impacts of potential development on cultural resources and would be required to comply with existing laws and regulations pertaining to archaeological and cultural resources. As it is unknown if Housing Opportunity Sites may contain unknown archaeological resources, surveys will be conducted to determine and assess potential impacts to such resources. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the EIR. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Although unlikely, future Project construction activities could result in unknown human remains being unearthed during earth moving activities. California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5; CEQA Section 15064.5; and PRC Section 5097.98, mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, requires that if human remains are discovered on a project site, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the PRC. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Although construction activities associated with development of the Project could result in the discovery of human remains, compliance II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-19
with existing laws would ensure that significant impacts to human remains would not occur. Therefore, compliance with existing laws and regulations would ensure that future residential development resulting from Project implementation does not disturb any human remains, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-20

3.6 ENERGY RESOURCES

ENERGY RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?

3.6.1 Environmental Setting
Southern California Edison (SCE) is the provider of electrical services to most of the City. Total electricity consumption in SCE’s service area, which spans much of southern California from Orange and Riverside Counties on the south to Santa Barbara County on the west to Mono County to the north, in gigawatthours (GWh) was approximately 81,128 GWh in 2021 (SCE 2019; CEC 2023a). Sources of electricity sold by SCE in 2018 were:
• 36 percent renewable, consisting mostly of solar and wind • 4 percent large hydroelectric
• 17 percent natural gas
• 6 percent nuclear
• 37 percent unspecified sources (CEC 2019)
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas services to the City and maintains transmission and distribution lines through the City. The service area of SoCalGas spans much of the southern half of California, from Imperial County in the southeast, to San Luis Obispo County in the northwest, to part of Fresno County in the north, and to Riverside County and most of San Bernardino County in the east (SoCalGas 2023). Total natural gas consumption in Orange County in 2018 was 575.1 million therms, with 339 million therms used by residential uses (CEC 2023b).

3.6.2 Environmental Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in an increased intensity of uses and more residential units. These additional uses would consume more energy which could result in a potentially significant environmental impact. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR.
~ □ □ □
□ □ ~ □

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-21
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
California’s electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy under the California Renewables Portfolio Standards (RPS) Program. In general, the state has RPS requirements of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020, 40 percent by 2024, 50 percent by 2026, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045 (California Public Utilities Commission). The statewide RPS requirements do not directly apply to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as SCE and SoCalGas. As SCE and SoCalGas are required to meet the RPS goals for 2030 to provide at least 60 percent clean energy to its customers, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be consistent with statewide goals.

The Project is intended to be consistent with the implementing General Plan Housing Element Update, and individual development projects constructed as a result of Project implementation would be required to comply with the current and future iterations the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Standards Code. Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement Housing Element Update policies which support energy conservation opportunities, including Title 24 energy efficiency standards and the statewide goal of transitioning the electricity grid to renewable sources. Furthermore, the Housing Element Update includes the following goal and policies related to energy efficiency that would be applicable to the proposed 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.

Therefore, with implementation of Housing Element Update policies and compliance with existing standards and regulations related to renewable energy, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-22

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo 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.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) 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 off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e) 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?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geological
feature?

3.7.1 Environmental Setting
The City is located in the Los Angeles coastal plain in the Peninsular Ranges of Southern California.

These Ranges are made up of hills and ranges with intervening, long, and narrow valleys that trend northwest. The City is in a zone of deformation extending from the foot of the Santa Monica Mountains as far southeasterly as Newport Beach, called the Newport-Inglewood belt. The Newport-Inglewood belt is a surface expression of the Newport-Inglewood Fault zone (City of Seal Beach 2003). □ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ □ ~
~ □ □ □

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-23
The majority of the City is located within an alluvial plan that extends southward from the convergence of Coyote Creek and San Gabriel River. The two channels drain from the northeast and north, and the combined flow reaches the sea at Alamitos Gap. Elevations within the City vary from approximately sea level to 60 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at Landing Hill (City of Seal Beach 2003).

3.7.2 Environmental Impact Analysis
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
The entire City, including the Housing Opportunity Sites, are located in the seismically active Southern California region. An active fault is defined by the State Mining and Geology Board as one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). The currently designated Newport-Inglewood Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone traverses through the City. Within this fault zone is the Seal Beach Fault (CGS 2023). All except one of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located to the north and south of this zone and not within it. Housing Opportunity Site 12 is traversed by an earthquake fault and therefore, is located within an earthquake fault zone.

Mandatory compliance with existing regulations, including preparation and submittal of geotechnical studies and reports prior to approval of grading and redevelopment plans, would ensure that potential surface fault rupture impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, the future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with the following General Plan policies related to geology and geologic hazards (City of Seal Beach 2003):
• Policy 3a: Require a soils and geology report to be prepared and filed for all development projects as specified in the City’s Municipal Code.
• Policy 3b: Require geological surveys to be prepared after onsite borings or subsurface explorations at the time subdivisions are submitted to the City for approval. • Policy 3c: Require supervision by a state licensed soils engineer for grading operations which require a grading permit.
• Policy 3d: Maintain and enforce protection measures which address control of runoff and erosion by vegetation management, control of access, and site planning for new development and major remodels, including directing runoff to the street and compliance with setbacks.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-24
• Policy 3e: Restrict development projects that will cause hazardous geologic conditions or that will expose existing developments to an unacceptable level of risk until the causative factors are mitigated.
• Policy 3f: Require independent review of the geologic and soils reports as appropriate. • Policy 3g: File and reference copies of pertinent site-specific geologic information and index the information in the City’s Geographic Information System. • Policy 3h: Provide ongoing maintenance and inspection of all public drainage facilities and eliminate or mitigate uncontrolled storm drain flow on hillsides or bluffs. • Policy 3i: Require the use of drought-resistant vegetation with deep root systems where appropriate for safety reasons in new development projects to reduce the potential for overirrigation. Encourage the use of drought-resistant vegetation throughout the City through public education efforts.
• Policy 3j: Maintain the present City practice of adopting the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code (as amended and published by the International Conference of Building Officials at approximate three-year intervals) because it incorporates the latest accepted standards for seismic design that reflect advances in technology and understanding of hazards. • Policy 3k: Prohibit the location of new essential facilities such as hospitals, fire and police stations, emergency centers and water tanks in geologically hazardous areas unless it is determined that there is no feasible alternative and the hazard is adequately mitigated. • Policy 3l: Require that earthquake survival and efficient post-disaster functioning be a primary concern in the siting, design and construction standards for new essential facilities. • Policy 3m: Evaluate the long-term risks and their associated costs versus the costs of relocation when major improvements to existing essential facilities are proposed and the facilities are located in known hazardous areas. Relocate the facility if the analysis indicates this is more cost effective in the long term.
• Policy 3n: Determine the liquefaction potential of a site prior to development and require that specific measures be taken, as necessary, to reduce damage in an earthquake. • Policy 3o: Promote the collection of relevant studies on fault location and history of fault displacement and liquefaction for future refinement of the geological information within and around the City.
• Policy 3p: Identify the effects of the most probable seismic event (Modified Mercalli intensity value VIII or more) on the infrastructure within the City.
• Policy 3q: Incorporate information on the probable seismic event impacts on infrastructure into the development of capital improvement programs so as to upgrade the survivability of the infrastructure.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-25
• Policy 3r: Work with governmental agencies (i.e., Caltrans and Water Districts) and the public utility companies to identify and promote effective mitigation of the effects of the most probable seismic event on the infrastructure which supports the City of Seal Beach • Policy 3s: Prepare a Geological Hazards Map based on a study of the geological formations and hazards of the entire City, employing a format compatible with the City’s GIS mapping system. • Policy 3t: Integrate the latest information about earthquake survivability into the City’s public safety education program. Encourage the retrofitting of every home within Seal Beach for earthquake survival, especially in the area of adequate anchoring (tie-down) of the homes to their foundations.

As there are no known active faults crossing the majority of the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites and majority of the sites are not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone, ground rupture is unlikely. However, Housing Opportunity Site 12 is located within an Earthquake Fault Zone and, as such, there is some potential for ground rupture to occur. Potential impacts to new developments facilitated by implementation of the Project would be subject to individual CEQA analysis on a project level to analyze potential impacts related to seismic hazards. All future housing developments facilitated by the Project would be required to demonstrate conformance with federal, state, and local seismic design guidelines and requirements.

Individual developments would be required to prepare and submit geotechnical studies and reports prior to approval of grading and redevelopment plans and would be required to implement project-specific mitigation measures to reduce any potential impacts. Therefore, compliance with existing regulations and preparation of seismicity reports would ensure that future residential development resulting from Project implementation would have a less than significant impact related to rupture of a known earthquake fault.

As such, this impact does not require further evaluation in the EIR. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
As with most of California, there is a significant potential for seismic ground shaking to occur. The Seal Beach Fault is considered capable of causing significant ground shaking in the City, but the recurrence interval is believed longer than for more distant, strike-slip faults. Other large earthquakes have historically occurred in the Los Angeles and Long Beach areas, and many earthquakes of low magnitude occur every year.

An earthquake of moderate- to high-magnitude generated within the Los Angeles or Long Beach area could cause considerable ground shaking at the Housing Opportunity Sites, similar to that which has occurred in the past. To mitigate the effects of strong seismic ground shaking, structures should be designed using sound engineering judgment and the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) requirements, at a minimum.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-26
designed in accordance with the CBC requirements and statewide regulations to minimize the effects of ground shaking to the greatest degree feasible. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would have a less than significant impact related to seismic ground shaking. As such, this impact does not require further evaluation in the EIR. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Liquefaction generally occurs as a result of strong ground shaking in areas where granular sediment or fill material either contains, or is located immediately above, high moisture content. The ground shaking transforms the material from a solid state to a temporarily liquid state and can result in settlement, flow failure, and lateral spreading. Liquefaction is a serious hazard because buildings in areas that experience liquefaction may sink or suffer major structural damage. These geological and groundwater conditions are prevalent in the City and surrounding areas. Housing Opportunity Sites 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 are within a liquefaction zone, while Housing Opportunity Sites 1, 4, 8, 12 and 13 do not appear to be within a liquefaction zone (DOC 2023). Although a majority of the Housing Opportunity Sites are within a liquefaction zone, the Project area is developed with existing commercial, residential, and industrial uses, all of which required proper soil compaction and grading prior to construction, consistent with mandatory regulations and requirements. The Project would comply with the General Plan policies mentioned above and would be constructed in accordance with CBC requirements and all applicable regulations pertaining to safety and stability related to seismic activity. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would have a less than significant impact from seismic related ground failure. As such, this impact does not require further evaluation in the EIR. iv. Landslides?
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Landslides are the downward and outward movements of slope-forming materials including rock, soil, artificial fill, or combinations of such materials under the direct influence of gravity. The Housing Opportunity Sites are at sea level, and there are no hills or mountains adjacent to them. There are no known landslides near the Housing Opportunity Sites, nor are they located in an identified landslide zone (DOC 2023). Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would involve grading and earthwork; however, mandatory compliance with existing regulations, including the preparation and submission of soil engineering studies, geotechnical evaluations, and seismicity reports for new developments would ensure that potential landslide impacts would remain less than significant.

Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with applicable policies and CBC design standards related to seismic and geologic hazards. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not cause substantial adverse effects related to landslides, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-27
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
During Project implementation and construction, onsite soils can be prone to erosion during construction activities, such as site grading. To reduce the potential for erosion during construction activities, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which specifies best management practices (BMPs) for temporary erosion control measures, would be required. Standard erosion control measures would be implemented as part of the SWPPP to minimize the risk of erosion or sedimentation during construction.

Additionally, the SWPPP is required to include an erosion control plan that describes measures such as phased grading, limiting areas of disturbance, and diverting runoff from disturbed areas. Construction of future residential development resulting from Project implementation would require the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and erosion control plans to minimize soil erosion impacts that could result.

Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. c) Would the project be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
The General Plan identifies that the City’s Grading and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Implementation Manual and Chapter 9.50.020 of the City’s Municipal Code require a geotechnical report to be prepared and filed for all projects in which a grading permit is required. Compliance with this requirement would minimize impact resulting from unstable geologic or soil conditions. The recommendations included in the geotechnical reports are required to be included in the grading plans and implemented during future Project implementation and development. Furthermore, compliance with CBC design requirements and additional review and approval of grading plans would minimize impacts resulting from unstable geologic or soil conditions. Compliance with existing regulations, including the preparation and implementation of site-specific soil engineering and geotechnical evaluations, would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. d) Would the project 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? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to prepare and submit a soil engineering report, and geotechnical evaluations as required under Chapter 9.50.020 of the Municipal Code. Recommendations in the geotechnical reports are required to be implemented into grading plans and during construction activities related to future residential development resulting from Project implementations. Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-28
implementation would be required to comply with CBC and grading regulations that would minimize the risks associated with development proposed in areas containing expansive soils. With implementation of recommendations included in geotechnical reports and adherence to existing regulations related to development in areas with expansive soils, impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR.
e) Would the project 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?
Finding: No Impact
The General Plan identifies the City as completely “built out” and necessary infrastructure such as water, wastewater, and drainage systems are fully constructed to withstand City system demands. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems, and there would be no impact. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
As discussed above, approval of the proposed Project by itself would not directly affect paleontological resources, as the Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of low- and moderate-income housing and, therefore, does not directly result in development. However, future residential development resulting from Project implementation could indirectly affect paleontological resources, as it would allow for future development of the sites. Grading and construction activities on Housing Opportunity Sites identified for future residential development could require earth moving activities that could potentially unearth previously unrecorded resources and result in significant impacts. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement General Plan Cultural Resources Element policies related to reducing impacts of potential development on cultural resources and would be required to comply with existing laws and regulations pertaining to historical, archaeological and paleontological resources. As it is unknown if Housing Opportunity Sites may contain unknown paleontological resources, surveys will be conducted to determine and assess potential impacts to such resources. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be analyzed in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-29

3.8 GREENHOUSE GASES

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?

3.8.1 Environmental Setting
Various gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere of GHG emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalent, which weight each gas by its global warming potential. Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted. Based on a 100-year time horizon, Methane traps over 25 times more heat per molecule than CO2, and N2O absorbs roughly 298 times more heat per molecule than CO2. Additional GHGs with high GWP include NF3, SF6, PFCs, and black carbon.

Emissions from future residential development resulting from Project could be generated by the following sources:
• Transportation: Emissions from vehicle trips beginning and ending in the City boundaries and from external/internal vehicle trips (i.e., trips that either begin or end in the City). • Energy: Emissions generated from purchased electricity and natural gas consumption used for cooking and heating in the City.
• Solid Waste Disposal: Indirect emissions from waste generated in the City. • Water/Wastewater: Emissions from electricity used to supply, treat, and distribute water based on the overall water demand and wastewater generation in the City. • Area Sources: Emissions generated from light commercial equipment, agricultural, and construction equipment use in the City.
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-30

3.8.2 Environmental Impact Analysis
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
This Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of low- and moderate-income housing and therefore, does not directly result in development. Certification of the Project itself would not lead to direct greenhouse gas emissions; however, future residential development associated with Project implementation would result in greenhouse gas emissions. As such, greenhouse gas emissions resulting from future Project implementation that may have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
The Project identifies Housing Opportunity Sites that have the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City’s RHNA allocation Development of the Housing Opportunity Sites would require activities that would result in increased greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation may conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions and greenhouse gases, and this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-31

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) 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?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) 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?
e) 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,
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

3.9.1 Environmental Setting
Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that a business or implementing agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to public health and safety or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. Hazardous materials are manufactured, transported, stored, used, and disposed of on a regular basis. Although hazardous materials incidents can happen anywhere, certain areas are at higher risk.

Within the state, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) regulates the use and handling of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is a division of Cal EPA and works in conjunction with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to enforce and implement hazardous materials laws and regulations. The primary transportation routes of hazardous materials in Orange County near the City are the I-405 and I- □ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
~ □ □ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-32
605 freeways. Some transportation of hazardous materials occurs on Pacific Coast highway and Seal Beach Boulevard within the City (City of Seal Beach 2003). Additionally, there are several hazardous materials cleanup sites within the City that are listed on several databases, including the State Water Resources Control Board Geotracker website (SWRCB 2023).

The City’s General Plan Safety Element includes the following goals and policies related to hazards and hazardous materials (City of Seal Beach 2003):
• Policy 2A: Coordinate with federal, state, and county hazardous waste management plans to protect the health and welfare of the public, the environment, and the economy of the City of Seal Beach through comprehensive programs that ensure safe and responsible management of hazardous waste and materials.
• Policy 2B: Implement the measures outline in the City’s Household Hazardous Waste Plan, Orange County’s Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and Hazardous Materials Area Plan, and the County’s Operational Area Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plan to ensure the effective management, transportation, and disposal of hazardous waste on a City-wide level. • Policy 2C: Support enforcement of state “right to know” laws, which outline the public’s right to information about local toxic producers.
• Policy 2F: Facilitate coordinated effective response to hazardous materials emergencies in the City to minimize health and environmental risks.
• Policy 2G: Promote public awareness in hazardous materials emergency response preparedness by any effective informational media, such as Emergency Preparedness Newsletter, neighborhood posters, and at least annual presentations at neighborhood association meetings. • Policy 2H: Support the combination of the OCFA’s hazardous materials disclosure program.

Ensure annual inspections of businesses that generate or use hazardous materials, and identify and monitor any historical hazardous materials sites within the City for public health and safety issues.
• Policy 2I: Promote public participation and education in the implementation of the programs identified in the County’s Hazardous Materials Management Program. • Policy 2J: Encourage OCFA to monitor the flow of hazardous materials through the City to ensure public safety.
• Policy 2K: Encourage coordination between the OCFA and the Seal Beach Police Department in the designation of routes and enforcement of hazardous materials, routing ordinances, and laws with the I-405 freeway as the primary designated route.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-33

3.9.2 Environmental Impact Analysis
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Construction activities associated with future residential development resulting from Project implementation is anticipated to involve demolition, grading, and construction of new structures and buildings. Hazardous materials, such as paints, sealants, solvents, diesel fuels, and other typical hazardous materials for construction would be used. With the use of these materials, there is potential for spills to create hazardous conditions. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with all applicable regulations, Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and General Plan policies that would minimize risks associated with the use of hazardous materials during construction activities, and they would be required to adhere to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) throughout Project implementation.

The Project is proposing rezoning and establishment of additional residential and housing zones for Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City. Upon completion of construction hazardous materials associated with Project operations would include materials used during typical household cleaning and maintenance activities. Although these potentially hazardous materials would vary, they would generally include household cleaning products, paints, fertilizers, and herbicides and pesticides. Many of these materials are considered household hazardous waste, common wastes, and/or universal wastes by the USEPA, which considers these types of wastes to be common to businesses and households and to pose a lower risk to people and the environment than other hazardous wastes when properly handled, transported, used, and disposed of (USEPA 2020). Federal, state, and local regulations typically allow these types of wastes to be handled and disposed of with less stringent standards than other hazardous wastes, and many of these wastes do not have to be managed as hazardous waste.

Therefore, by complying with existing laws, regulations, and General Plan policies, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not create a significant hazard through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. b) Would the project 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?
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
During construction activities, the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials could result in accidental releases into the environment. However, compliance with applicable laws and regulations would minimize the potential for hazardous materials releases that could pose harm to the public or environment. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-34
Future Project implementation would establish additional residential housing opportunities throughout the City. As mentioned above, common materials associated with residential uses include small quantity hazardous material, such as cleaners and pesticides. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not pose a substantial hazard to the public or environment through accidental releases. Therefore, by complying with existing laws, regulations, and General Plan policies, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not create a significant hazard through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
The proposed Housing Opportunity Sites are distributed throughout the City. Housing Opportunity Sites 8 and 11 are located within one-quarter mile of McGaugh Elementary School, which is currently surrounded by existing residential development, Seal Beach Boulevard and the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station.

As stated under Impact a), construction activities required for future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with all applicable regulations, Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, and General Plan policies that would minimize risks associated with the use of hazardous materials during construction activities. The same regulations that would protect onsite construction workers from potential risks related to the use of hazardous materials would also protect any nearby sensitive receptors, including schools. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with existing laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials, waste, and emissions to minimize the potential for hazardous emissions to occur.

Adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements would reduce potential impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation 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, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR.
d) Would the project 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?
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese List) is a planning document providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires Cal EPA to develop, at least annually, an updated Cortese List. The DTSC is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other state and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous materials release information for the II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-35
Cortese List. Several hazardous material sites are identified within the City; however, none of the Housing Opportunity Sites are identified on the Cortese List.

Individual development that occurs on the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites that may be located on or next to a hazardous materials site would be required to complete an environmental site assessment (ESA) by a qualified professional to ensure that the future development projects would not disturb hazardous materials sites and that any proposed development would not create a substantial hazard to the public or the environment. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to prepare and submit a Phase I ESA, as appropriate. If Phase I identifies a recognized environmental condition, it would recommend preparation of a Phase II ESA, which would consist of sampling and testing of soil, soil vapor, and groundwater for hazardous materials and human health risks assessments based on concentrations of the hazardous materials identified. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement the recommendations included in the ESAs to remediate hazardous materials before the City would issue building permits. If a new development that is developed under the Project is located on a property contaminated by hazardous substances, compliance with laws and regulations for investigations and remediation regulated at the local, state, and federal level would be required. Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement General Plan policies that would minimize risks from hazardous materials sites. As future residential development resulting from Project implementation would require adherence to General Plan policies, compliance with applicable laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials sites, and preparation of environmental site assessments, impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. e) 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 or private airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
The closest public airport to the Housing Opportunity Sites is Long Beach Airport, located approximately

5.2 miles to the northwest of the City. The City is not located within the Long Beach Airport’s Airport Influence Area and therefore, Long Beach Airport operations would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working on the identified Housing Opportunity Sites (Los Angeles County 2004). The Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base is not a public airport; however, it is located approximately 600 feet to the east of Housing Opportunity Sites 5, 6, and 10.). As identified in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos, the City is located within the airport’s notification area and the identified Housing Opportunity Sites are dispersed throughout the airport’s different height restriction zones and impact zones. Therefore, there is potential for development of the Housing Opportunity Sites to result in safety hazards. As discussed in Section 3.13, Noise, below, none of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located within the 65 decibel (dB) noise contour areas for the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base, under both existing and future scenarios, as identified by the General Plan Noise Element (City of Seal Beach 2003). However, some sites are located adjacent to the noise contour areas and would require noise control measures to minimize potential impacts. Therefore, due to the proximity of the Housing Opportunity Sites to the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base, II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-36
implementation of the Project could result in a safety or noise hazard for people residing or working in the area and result in a potentially significant impact. This potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR.
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
The City has prepared an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to ensure protection of City residents in times of emergency and to identify local hazards and provide measures to address these hazards (City of Seal Beach 2017). All future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with applicable fire and building codes and would be required to be reviewed by the OCFA’s Community Risk Reduction Division prior to approval. Additionally, Project implementation would be required to comply with policies identified in the General Plan to ensure effective emergency response. Compliance with General Plan policies, applicable fire and building codes, and the City’s EOP and LHMP would ensure that Project implementation would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, and there would be no impact. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
The Housing Opportunity Sites are located on different parcels located throughout the City and are not located in hillside areas or areas with urban-wildland interfaces. Project implementation would not occur within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Future residential developments resulting from Project implementation would be required to adhere to a wide range of state and local codes pertaining to fire protection and would be required to abide by the City’s EOP and LHMP. Adherence to the measures in these plans would minimize impacts to the extent possible and would ensure that new developments would not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with wildland fires. Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement General Plan policies identified to minimize risk from wildfire hazards. Therefore, with implementation of applicable state and local codes, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not expose people or structures to significant wildland fire risks, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-37

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade
surface or groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) 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 onor off-site; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site;
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.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?

3.10.1 Environmental Setting
The City is located within the Santa Ana River Watershed, which is the most extensive watershed in Orange County, running through a three-county area from its headwaters in the San Bernadino Mountains to its outlet in the Pacific Ocean (Orange County 2013). The Santa Ana River Watershed encompasses approximately 2,700 square miles.

The City is located near multiple hydrologic features which include rivers, the Pacific ocean and wetlands.

Within the City limits is the mouth of the San Gabriel River, draining an area of approximately 700 square miles within Los Angeles and Orange Counties, the Pacific Ocean, and various wetland areas that are subject to various sources of pollution within the community. The San Gabriel River is located along the western boundary of the City. The San Gabriel River originates in Los Angeles County but empties into the ocean at Seal Beach. Additionally, the river provides an outlet for flood control basins and channels □ □ ~ □
~ □ □ □
□ □ ~ □
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-38
within the City. The river is a major source of ocean contamination after storm events due to the washing of upstream pollutants and trash into the ocean (City of Seal Beach 2003).

The City’s General Plan Safety Element includes the following goals and policies related to hydrology and water quality (City of Seal Beach 2003):
• Policy 2N: Facilitate the proper separation of sewer and storm drain systems through construction upgrades and operation and maintenance of sewer and storm drain infrastructure to eliminate the flow of sewage into the City storm drains.
• Policy 2O: Facilitate coordination and participation by all of the jurisdictions that make up the Los Angeles and Santa Ana RWQCBs to improve water quality. Encourage the elimination of sewer discharges and non-point source pollution into the San Gabriel River. • Policy 2S: Minimize changes in hydrology and pollutant loading, require incorporation of control, including structural and non-structural BMPs to mitigate the projected increase in pollutant loads and flows, ensure that post-development runoff rates and velocities from a site have no significant adverse impact on downstream erosion and stream habitat, minimize the quantity of storm water directed to impermeable surfaces and the MS4s, and maximize the percentage of permeable surfaces to allows more percolation of storm water into the ground. • Policy 2U: Encourage the use of water quality wetlands, biofiltration swales, watershed-scale retrofits, etc. where such measures are likely to be effective and technically and economically feasible.
• Policy 2V: Provide for appropriate permanent measures to reduce storm water pollutant loads in storm water from the development site.
• Policy 2W: Establish development guidelines for areas particularly susceptible to erosion and sediment loss.

3.10.2 Environmental Impact Analysis
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Construction activities related to Project implementation could impact water quality due to erosion and other pollutants entering construction site runoff, resulting in polluted runoff entering the City’s stormwater system. Construction activities such as grading could accelerate the rate of erosion and cause substantial impacts to water quality. The City’s General Plan Open Space, Recreation, and Conservation Element encourages reducing urban pollutant runoff through implementation of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs (City of Seal Beach 2003). Additionally, Chapter 9.30 Storm Water Management Program of the City’s Municipal Code includes requirements for stormwater drainage systems, polluted runoff, control of water quality management, and enforcement and permit requirements. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-39
Any projects that include one acre or greater of soil disturbance would be required to comply with the Construction General Permit and associated NPDES regulations to ensure that potential for soil erosion is minimized. Future development associated with Project implementation would be required to comply with all relevant NPDES requirements and would be required to prepare a SWPPP. The SWPPP would be required to include construction BMPs that address pollutant source reduction and provide measures of controls necessary to mitigate potential pollutant sources. The Project would also be required to implement General Plan policies that would ensure that new development minimizes potential water quality impacts. Therefore, with the implementation of General Plan policies, adherence to NPDES and Construction General Permit requirements, such as the preparation of a SWPPP, and adherence to all relevant state and local regulations, construction activities associated future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation of future residential development resulting from Project implementation could potentially create new sources of polluted runoff and increase post-construction pollutants. However, as identified in the Housing Element Update, all of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites are already developed with existing uses; therefore, development of the Housing Opportunity Site with residential uses would not result in a substantial increase in polluted runoff and impervious surfaces. To prevent long-term impacts related to Project operation, new residential development related to Project implementation would be required to comply with City’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.20, Storm Water Management Program.

Municipal Code Section 9.20.015, Controls for Water Quality Management, outlines water quality management requirements for all new development and significant redevelopment projects, including requiring compliance with the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with development requirements and standards for storm drainage and stormwater runoff identified under City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.020(H), including prevention of runoff, connection to the public drainage system, incorporation of design requirements and integration of BMPs, as required by the City’s NPDES permit requirements. Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to incorporate General Plan policies which ensure that new development minimizes potential water quality impacts. With the adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements and relevant General Plan policies, runoff associated with both construction and operation of future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not violate any water quality standards or discharge requirements, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
The Project is proposing implementation of the City’s new Housing Element Update and Zoning Code Update which would result in the provision of Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City that have the potential to accommodate new housing developments to help the City meet its RHNA allocation. As II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-40
identified in the Housing Element Update, all of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites are already developed; therefore, they do not provide substantial areas for groundwater recharge. As identified in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City provides water to its residents and other customers using the imported potable water supply obtained from its regional wholesaler, Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and local groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). According to the 2020 UWMP, the City relied on 65 percent groundwater and 35 percent imported water during its Fiscal Year 2019- 2020 and by 2045, it is projected that the water supply portfolio would change to approximately 85 percent groundwater and 15 percent imported water (City of Seal Beach 2021). Future residential developments resulting from implementation of the Project would result in an increased demand of potable water in the City through increased development and resulting in indirect population growth; therefore, an increased demand to groundwater supplies would result. Therefore, implementation of the Project could result in decreased groundwater supplies resulting from increased demand, and this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. c) Would the project 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 off-site; Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Implementation of the Project would result in changes to land uses which may result in an increase of impervious surfaces. However, the Housing Opportunity Sites identified for rezoning under the Project are already developed with existing uses and located in areas surrounded by existing developments. Future residential developments resulting from implementation of the Project would utilize the existing drainage facilities in the existing surrounding areas. Additionally, Project implementation would require construction activities that could result in increased potential for erosion and siltation to occur. As identified above, under Impact a), the Project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Chapter 9.20 Storm Water Management Program. City Municipal Code Section 9.20.015 Controls for Water Quality Management outlines water quality management requirements for all new development and significant redevelopment projects, including requiring compliance with the Orange County DAMP. Additionally, the future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with development requirements and standards for storm drainage and stormwater runoff identified under City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.020(H), including prevention of runoff, connection to the public drainage system, incorporation of design requirements and integration of BMPs as required by the City’s NPDES permit requirements.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-41
would be required to incorporate General Plan policies which ensure that new development minimizes potential water quality impacts resulting from erosion and siltation. With the adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements and relevant General Plan policies, runoff associated with both construction and operation of future residential development resulting from implementation of the Project would not result in increased erosion or siltation on or offsite, and impacts would be less than significant.

As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
Future residential development resulting from Project implementation could result in an increase of impervious surfaces within the City; however, implementation of the Project would not result in substantial increases in impervious surfaces as the Housing Opportunity Sites identified for rezoning are already developed with existing uses and located in highly urbanized areas with substantial impervious surfaces.

Though the Project may not result in substantial increased in impervious surfaces resulting in increased rate and amount of surface runoff, there are existing storm drainage capacity issues within portions of the City. Therefore, Project implementation and development of some of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites may result in flooding impacts related to stormwater runoff. As such, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR.
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
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
As identified above under Impact c.i, the Project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Chapter 9.20, Storm Water Management Program. City Municipal Code Section 9.20.015, Controls for Water Quality Management, outlines water quality management requirements for all new development and significant redevelopment projects, including requiring compliance with the DAMP. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with development requirements and standards for storm drainage and stormwater runoff identified under City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.020(H), including prevention of runoff, connection to the public drainage system, incorporation of design requirements, and integration of BMPs as required by the City’s NPDES permit requirements. Compliance with these requirements would ensure both construction and operation of future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not result in increased polluted runoff.

However, as identified above under Impact c.ii, there are existing storm drainage capacity issues within portions of the City. Therefore, Project implementation and development of some of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites may result in creation or contribution of runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the storm drainage system. As such, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-42
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows.

Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
As identified in the City’s General Plan Safety Element, portions of the City are subject to flooding due to wave run-up which is typically caused by large swells produced by storms ay sea occurring at high tide (City of Seal Beach 2003). Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepares Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) to identify potential flood areas across the United States. A majority of the Housing Opportunity Sites identified for the Project are located within areas identified as Zone X, or an area with minimal flood hazard and is identified as an area with reduced flood risk due to levees (FEMA 2023).

However, as identified by FEMA, Housing Opportunity Sites 11 and 12 are located within Zone D, an area with possible but undetermined flood hazards. Additionally, Housing Opportunity Site 10 and a portion of Housing Opportunity Site 6 are located within areas identified by FEMA as Zone AE (EL 14), or a special flood hazard area with a flood elevation of 14 feet. As some of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located within flood risk areas, future residential developments resulting from implementation of the Project may be located in areas susceptible to flooding and implementation of the Project could impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. d) Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
As identified above under Impact 3.iv, a majority of the Housing Opportunity Sites identified for the Project are located within areas identified as Zone X, or an area with minimal flood hazard and is identified as an area with reduced flood risk due to levees (FEMA 2023). However, Housing Opportunity Sites 11 and 12 are located within Zone D, an area with possible but undetermined flood hazards and Housing Opportunity Site 10 and a portion of Housing Opportunity Site 6 are located within areas identified by FEMA as Zone AE (EL 14), or a special flood hazard area with a flood elevation of 14 feet. Due to the City’s proximity to the Pacific Ocean, the City is at risk of tsunamis. The City’s General Plan Safety Element identified that the risk of inundation by a tsunami appears to be low; however, if an earthquake occurred along the Newport-Inglewood fault, a tsunami of high inundation level could be expected (City of Seal Beach 2003a). As such, implementation of the Project could result in risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation resulting from flooding, tsunamis, and seiches and therefore, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
Measures identified above to ensure that developments have a less than significant impact on surface and groundwater quality would also ensure that future development does not obstruct or conflict with implementation of a water quality control plan. However, as identified above under Impact b), the Project may result in potentially significant impacts related to groundwater supplies such that the Project may II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-43
impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation could conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan, and this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-44

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING

LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) 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?

3.11.1 Environmental Setting
The proposed Project is located in the City of Seal Beach, California, located at the northwestern edge of Orange County, California. It borders the City of Long Beach (Los Angeles County) to the north, the Orange County Cities of Huntington Beach and Westminster to the east, Huntington Beach to the south, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The Project is interspersed throughout the City, which has a land area of approximately 13 square miles. The Project proposes to rezone six Housing Opportunity Sites, proposes a new Specific Plan for one site, and proposed a Specific Plan Amendment for another site, in order to allow increased residential densification which would result from implementation of the Housing Element Update. Additionally, the Project identified three underutilized sites and two military sites as Housing Opportunity Sites that could be redeveloped with residential uses to help the City meet its RHNA allocation.

3.11.2 Environmental Impact Analysis
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
The Project identified Housing Opportunity Sites within the City to allow for densified residential development, including low- and moderate-income housing units to help the City meet its RHNA allocation. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would occur within areas that are already developed and would not occur within any existing residential communities that could be divided. The identified Housing Opportunity Sites are dispersed throughout the City rather than concentrated in a single area of the City and therefore, development of these sites would not result in division of established communities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, and this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR.
□ □ IZI □
IZI □ □ □

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-45
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
The Project is proposing to redevelop, or rezone identified Housing Opportunity Sites in various locations throughout the City. The Housing Element Update identifies 13 Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City that have the potential for providing additional housing. The sites are broken into two categories:
underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and sites where zoning modification are proposed. Of the 13 Housing Opportunity Sites, six require rezoning, two on the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station require a change of use, one is proposed for a Specific Plan, and one would require an amendment to the Main Street Specific Plan. Housing Opportunity Site 10 is going through its own rezoning and specific plan process with the current property owner. The rezoning effort would also include the establishment of a new zoning designation, MC/RHD, which would apply to five of the Housing Opportunity Sites (Sites 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8). 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. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation may cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect. Therefore, this impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-46

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES

MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) 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?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,
or other land use plan?

3.12.1 Environmental Setting
Mineral resources in the City include an oil extraction at Esther Island within the tidelands, oil extraction along the Newport-Inglewood Fault on the Hellman Ranch property, and an oil lease site in the Seal Beach NWR (City of Seal Beach 2003). The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 sets forth requirement for the state to classify all land into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) that indicate the potential for mineral resources regardless of existing land use or ownership. However, there are no known or identified mineral resources identified within the Housing Opportunity Sites (DOC 2023b).

3.12.2 Environmental Impact Analysis
a) Would the project 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?
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? a-b) Finding: No Impact
The General Plan does not indicate that any Housing Opportunity Sites are located within an area of locally important mineral resources (City of Seal Beach 2003). Housing Opportunity Site 9 is zoned OE; however, it is a vacant lot with no oil extraction or production activities present. The Project area does not encompass the City’s identified resource areas: Hellman Ranch, Esther Island, and the Seal Beach NWR.

The proposed Housing Opportunity Sites are residential, commercial, and other underutilized areas.

Housing Opportunity Site 4 is the nearest site to one of the identified resources, Hellman Ranch, and is located approximately 0.3-mile to the northeast. Additionally, the Housing Opportunity Sites are not currently used for mineral extraction and do not contain any known or designated mineral resources.

Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of any known mineral resources, nor would it have potential impacts associated with the loss availability of a locally mineral resource recovery site. As such, there would be no impact, and this impact does not require further evaluation in the EIR.
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-47

3.13 NOISE
NOISE
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels.
c) 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, would the
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?

3.13.1 Environmental Setting
The City has set noise and vibration performance standards for noise sources in the City, which are adopted by reference from Orange County Code Section 4-6.1. City Municipal Code Chapter 7.15, Noise, defines the qualitative standards used in determining a potential violation and provides performance standards for interior and exterior noise by zone, based on land use (City of Seal Beach 2023e). Table 6 shows the acceptable interior and exterior noise limits by zone. Exterior noise limits in the table are based on the noise contours and compatibility guidelines provided in the General Plan Noise Element (City of Seal Beach 2003).

Table 6: City Interior and Exterior Noise Standards
Noise Zone Interior
(dBA Ldn)*
Exterior (dBA Ldn) Time Period
Noise Zone 1 – Residential Properties 55 55 7:00 am to 10:00 pm Noise Zone 1 – Residential Properties 50 50 10:00 pm to 7:00 am Noise Zone 2 – Commercial Properties 65 At any time
Noise Zone 3 – Industrial,
Manufacturing and Oil Properties 70 At any time
Source: City of Seal Beach Municipal Code, 2023.

Notes: dB (decibels) at the A-weighted scale over a 24-hour, time-weighted annual average noise level.

The City’s Municipal Code indicates that noise associated with construction, repair, remodeling or grading of real property are exempt from the noise standards if performed between 7:00 am and 8:00 pm on weekdays and 8:00 am and 8:00 pm on Saturday (City of Seal Beach 2023e).

IZI □ □ □
IZI □ □ □
IZI □ □ □

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-48
According to the General Plan Noise Element, the predominant noise source in the City is caused by automobiles and some overflights from military aircrafts. Noise sensitive receptors in the City include, but are not limited to, residences, schools, hospitals, elder care facilities, or any other land use areas deemed as sensitive by the City. As part of the General Plan Noise Element, in 2002, 10 sites were selected for measurement of the existing noise environment, which proved to be highly variable, depending on the location (City of Seal Beach 2003). The time-averaged sound level in the City was in the range of approximately 59.8 to 70.3 dBA Leq.

3.13.2 Environmental Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
Construction and operation resulting from future residential development resulting from Project implementation could result in the generation of temporary and permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of future development projects. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation may result in a substantial increase in ambient noise in excess of City standards.

Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. b) Would the project exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
Construction activities associated with development of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites would generate varying degrees of groundborne vibration and noise levels, depending on construction procedures and equipment. Construction and operation of the future residential development resulting from Project implementation may result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR.
c) 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, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
The closest public use airport to the City boundaries is Long Beach Airport, which is located approximately 5.2 miles to the northwest, and its airport land use plan boundaries are approximately three miles from the City boundaries. The Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base conducts flights over the City and noise sensitive land uses throughout the week. The Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base is II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-49
not a public airport; however, it is located approximately 600 feet to the east of Housing Opportunity Sites 5, 6, and 10. The General Plan Noise Element provides noise contours prepared by the California National Guard, and several noise sensitive areas north of I-405 were experiencing aircraft-generated noise levels greater than 65 dB at the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). General Plan Noise Element Figure N-5 depicts the existing noise contours of the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base, and Figure N-6 depicts the future noise contours. None of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour, both in the existing and future scenarios, as identified by the General Plan Noise Element (City of Seal Beach 2003). However, some sites are located adjacent to the noise contour areas and would require noise control measures to minimize potential impacts. Therefore, due to the proximity of the Housing Opportunity Sites to the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base, implementation of the Project could result in excessive noise levels for people residing or working in the area and result in a potentially significant impact. This potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-50

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) 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)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

3.14.1 Environmental Setting
Seal Beach was incorporated in 1915 primarily as a farming community and beachside tourist destination.

The population of the City remained relatively stable from 1915 to 1944 with little more than 1,000 residents. However, in 1944 the U.S. Navy acquired half of the city to construct the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station bringing new residents to the City. The population increased to more than 7,000 people by 1954. In 1962, the Leisure World retirement community was established in the City with an estimated 9,000 senior residents. Other housing development during this time took place in the neighborhoods known as College Park East, College Park West, and Marina Hill; and the Surfside community was annexed into the City. However, these development booms were followed by very limited growth in the 1970’s and afterward. During the 20-year period from 2000 to 2020, the City had an annual growth rate of

0.2 percent compared to 0.7 percent for the region as a whole. According to the City’s Housing Element Update, the City had an estimated population of 24,992 residents in 2020 and as of January 1, 2021, the City population was estimated to be approximately 24,443 residents (City of Seal Beach 2022).

Additionally, as of January 1, 2023, the Department of Finance (DOF) population estimates identifies the City’s population to be approximately 24,647 residents (DOF 2023).

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 2022). As of January 1, 2023, the City is estimated to have 14,675 total housing units with a vacancy rate of 9.3 percent (DOF 2023). ~ □ □ □
□ □ ~ □

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-51

3.14.2 Environmental Impact Analysis
a) Would the project 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)?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
The City is proposing a rezoning program to accommodate the planning of low- and moderate-income households. The City’s 2021 – 2029 Housing Element Update was adopted by City Council on February 7, 2022. Pursuant to the state’s RHNA allocation, the City is required to plan for 1,243 new housing units, with 258 units allocated for very low-income households, 201 units allocated for low-income households, 239 units allocated for moderate-income households, and 545 units allocated for above moderate-income households. The City’s RHNA allocation was 1,243 new housing units, and the Housing Element Update requires the City to demonstrate that it can accommodate the RHNA allocation, as well as an additional buffer and, therefore, the City proposes a rezoning program to accommodate the planning of low- and moderate-income households, as required by the state’s RHNA allocation for the City.

Certification of the proposed Project itself would not result in direct unplanned population growth as the Project is proposing the rezoning and identification Housing Opportunity Sites within the City to allow for more residential development potential and not the actual development of these sites. However, certification of the Project would lead to more parcels in the City being available for residential developments and could result in indirect impacts to population growth.

According to the DOF, as of January 2023, the City is estimated to have a persons per household rate of

1.83 persons per household (DOF 2023). The identified Housing Opportunity Sites could accommodate a total of 1,833 housing units at maximum buildout of each individual site. If all Housing Opportunity Sites are developed to the maximum allowable density with residential uses to provide an additional 1,833 housing units, it would result in a population growth of approximately 3,354 residents. According to the DOF’s population estimates, the City had an estimated population of 24,647 as of January 2023 (DOF 2023). Therefore, the 3,354 residents that would be generated by maximum buildout of the Project would result in a 12 percent increase in population over current conditions.

The 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 2020). As the City’s current population is identified at 24,647 residents and implementation of the Project would result in an increase of 3,354 residents, the projected increase in residents resulting from implementation of the Project would be greater than the projected growth for the City.

Project implementation would be in compliance with General Plan and Housing Element Update policies to provide for balanced housing types and affordability levels and provide access to affordable housing to lower-income households. Additionally, the Project would ensure that the City is in compliance with the II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-52
state’s RHNA allocation for the City. However, as the Project would result in an increase in the number of residents above the projected future residential population for the City, future residential development resulting from Project implementation could result in potentially significant impacts related to population growth. Therefore, this topic will be further evaluation in the EIR. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
The Housing Opportunity Sites that are proposed for rezoning and the identified underutilized sites include a variety of uses, including commercial, retail, industrial, storage, residential, and military. The Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of housing and therefore, does not directly result in development.

Certification of the Project itself would not lead to construction of new residential developments in the City but would result in changes to the existing zoning designations and proposed use of the site. Project implementation would not require relocation of existing developments, as it would not directly lead to development of the identified Housing Opportunity Sites. However, if the Housing Opportunity Sites are identified for new development or redevelopment on an individual basis, displacement of existing people or housing could occur. Individual development and redevelopment of the sites may result in displacement of existing people or housing if the identified Housing Opportunity Sites are currently developed with existing residential uses.

However, the Housing Opportunity Sites would likely be developed or redeveloped with a higher density residential development and provide for more residential units, as compared to existing conditions.

Therefore, any existing housing that would be demolished as a result of future residential development resulting from Project implementation could be replaced at a higher ratio of residential units. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-53

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES

PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) 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:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other Public Facilities?

3.15.1 Environmental Setting
Fire Protection
OCFA provides fire protection and emergency medical services in the City. OCFA also serves 23 cities within the County and all unincorporated areas. The OCFA protects over 1,984,758 residents from its 77 fire stations located throughout the County. OCFA Reserve Firefighters work 10 stations throughout Orange County (OCFA 2023). The OCFA 2022 Statistical Annual Report identified that the department employed a total of 1,556 staff for various positions throughout the OCFA. In 2022, OCFA responded to 175,457 incidents. The Housing Opportunity Sites are located within the fire response zones for OCFA Fire Stations 63 and 64.

Police Protection
Police services for the Project would be provided by the Seal Beach Police Department (SBPD). SBPD is responsible for updating the Emergency Services Plan, incorporating a model citizen response model, evacuation plans, emergency aid, comprehensive communications components, and a coordination program with other local government agencies, schools, hospitals, and utility companies (City of Seal Beach 2003).

Schools
The City is part of the Los Alamitos Unified School District (Los Al USD) which includes K-12 education.

Within Los Al USD, there are nine school campuses serving more than 9,500 students in its jurisdiction.

There is only one Los Al USD school within the City, McGaugh Elementary School. ~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
□ □ ~ □
~ □ □ □
□ □ ~ □

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-54
Parks
The City offers built and natural trails, developed parks, beaches, and golf courses as some of the recreational opportunities in the City. The public park system in the City includes mini, neighborhood, community, and major/regional parks that are differentiated by scale, population served, and amenities.

The City’s Park standard is based on guidance provided by California Government Code Section 666477, referred to as the Quimby Act, and the City has a park standard of three acres per 1,000 residents. In addition to various parks, the shoreline of Seal Beach is considered to be of regional significance.

Other Public Facilities – Libraries
The Orange County Library operates 33 libraries within the County. There are two libraries within the City, including Orange County Library Seal Beach Branch, located approximately 0.15 mile south of the Housing Opportunity Site 8, and Leisure World Library, located in proximity to Housing Opportunity Site 2.

The City’s General Plan Safety Element includes the following goals and policies related to public services (City of Seal Beach 2003):
• Policy 1C: Continue to maintain the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and provide for its adequate support and staffing, including the acquisition and maintenance of a mobile Incident Command Support vehicle for emergency response.
• Policy 1L: Evaluate the location of all public facilities necessary for emergency response in relation to the City's current Hazard Maps and the level of risk associated with their locations, and move facilities located in high or extreme hazard areas to areas less subject to hazards, if feasible.
• Policy 1M: Ensure that any new public facilities are designed and located in such a manner as to eliminate potential hazard impacts that may reduce the utility of the facility following a disaster. • Policy 4A: Ensure that adequate facilities and fire service personnel are maintained based on population, fire hazards in and around the City and a performance standard of an average total reflect time of seven minutes or less.

3.15.2 Environmental Impact Analysis
a) Would the project 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:
i. Fire Protection?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-55
The Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of housing and therefore, does not directly result in development.

Certification of the Project itself would not lead to construction of new residential developments in the City. However, implementation of the Project would result in facilitation of up to 1,833 new housing units being developments in the City and would result in population growth that would incrementally increase in demand for fire protection and emergency services. The increase in demand for fire protection and emergency services could result in impacts to fire services and facilities, including response times or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
ii. Police Protection?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
The Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of housing and therefore, does not directly result in development.

Certification of the Project itself would not lead to construction of new residential developments in the City. However, implementation of the Project would result in facilitation of up to 1,833 new housing units being developments in the City and would result in population growth that would incrementally increase in demand for police services. The increase in demand for police services could result in impacts to police services and facilities, including response times or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. iii. Schools?
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Project implementation would identify various Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City to provide additional residential housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households. As stated in the Housing Element Update:

State law limits fees charged for development permit processing to the reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. Various fees and assessments are charged by the City and other public agencies to cover the costs of processing permit applications and providing services and facilities such as schools, parks and infrastructure. Almost all of these fees are assessed through a pro rata share system, based on the magnitude of the project's impact or on the extent of the benefit that will be derived. Development fees will vary from project-to-project depending on the specific characteristics. Table IV-8 summarizes the development fees for typical residential projects.

Currently, a majority of the City’s K-12 student population needs to travel outside the City to attend school, and Los Alamitos USD is anticipated to have adequate capacity to serve potential new students generated from Project implementation. Los Alamitos USD schools generally have small class sizes and low student to teacher ratios (Los Alamitos Unified School District 2023). Pursuant to Government Code Section 65996, payment of school fees is deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation.

Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would also be required to comply II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-56
with policies in the General Plan pertaining to ensuring adequate school services. Therefore, with the payment of required fees and incorporation of General Plan policies, the Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered school facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. iv. Parks?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
Certification of the Project itself would not lead to construction of new residential developments in the City. Future housing developments facilitated by the Project would be subject to individual environmental review and would occur incrementally as market conditions allow and at the discretion of the individual property owner. None of the Housing Opportunity Sites are currently zoned for park facilities nor are they developed with existing park facilities. Future housing development facilitated by the Project and the resulting population growth would result in an incremental increase in demand for parks throughout the City. Though the increase in demand for park facilities would not be concentrated in one part of the City as the Housing Opportunity Sites are dispersed throughout the City, the City does not have the land capacity to increase parkland and therefore could result in the City not meeting its parkland standard of three acres per 1,000 residents. As such, this impact is potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
v. Other Public Facilities – Libraries?
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Project implementation would create additional residential housing opportunities within the City to provide housing units to help the City meet its RHNA allocation. These additional units are not anticipated to result in an increase in demand on public facilities. The Leisure World Library located in proximity to Housing Opportunity Site 2 is outside of the proposed rezone portion of this site; therefore, no libraries would be removed as a result of future Project implementation. Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with General Plan policies that would ensure adequate library services are provided. Therefore, Project implementation would not result in the need for new or physically altered public facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-57

3.16 RECREATION

RECREATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) 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?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?

3.16.1 Environmental Setting
Open space or outdoor recreation is defined by the City as land that is set aside for neighborhood, community or regional parks, beaches, special use parks or facilities, greenbelts, and open space corridors (City of Seal Beach 2003). Sunset Marina Park and the shoreline of Seal Beach are some of the recreational areas located within the City that provide various types of recreational activities for the City’s residents and adjacent cities residents can utilize. The City offers approximately 77.3 acres of parks and open space for various recreational activities (Seal Beach 2003).

3.16.2 Environmental Impact Analysis
a) Would the project 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?
b) Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a-b) Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
Certification of the Project itself would not lead to construction of new residential developments in the City. None of the Housing Opportunity Sites are currently zoned for park facilities nor are they developed with existing park facilities and therefore, individual developments proposed on the Housing Opportunity Sites would not result in conversion of parks or recreational facilities to residential uses. Future housing development facilitated by the Project and the resulting population growth would result in an incremental increase in demand for parks throughout the City. Though the increase in demand for park facilities would not be concentrated in one part of the City as the Housing Opportunity Sites are dispersed throughout the City, the City does not have the land capacity to increase parkland and therefore could result in the City not meeting its parkland standard of three acres per 1,000 residents. The Project could increase the use of existing parks and recreational cities such that substantial physical deterioration would occur or be IZI □ □ □
IZI □ □ □

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-58
accelerated and may require the construction or expansion of existing facilities. As such, this impact is potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-59

3.17 TRANSPORTATION

TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation systems, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersection(s) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment))?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

3.17.1 Environmental Setting
SB 743 caused revisions to the CEQA Guidelines which established new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts, so that level of service or other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion would not be the sole basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA.

The revised CEQA Guidelines utilize the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metric to evaluate the significance of transportation related impacts for development projects, land use plans, and transportation infrastructure projects. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has provided a Technical Advisory (December 2018) that recommends specific VMT significance thresholds that may constitute a significant transportation impact and lead agencies have the discretion to set or apply their own thresholds of significance. OPR recommends use of a per-capita measurement of VMT for CEQA analysis based on average VMT per resident for evaluation of residential development. The City has similarly adopted thresholds of significance consistent with the OPR recommendation. Certain types of development, such as development within a one-half-mile of an existing major transit stop can generally be presumed to have a less than significant impact.

Regional and local access roads in the City include SR 1 (Pacific Coast Highway), SR 22 (Garden Grove Freeway), I-405 (San Diego Freeway), Seal Beach Boulevard, Westminster Boulevard, Main Street, and Marina Drive. OCTA provides public transportation services on Bus Routes 1, 42 and 60. Senior transportation programs are provided by California Yellow Cab, and Senior Non-Emergency Transportation is also provided to provide access for routine medical care (City of Seal Beach 2023f).

There are also multiple pedestrian and bicycle paths in the City, and the General Plan Circulation Element includes goals, objectives and policies related to improved bicycle and pedestrian routes (City of Seal Beach 2003a), as follows:

Goal: Provide a citywide system of safe, efficient, and attractive bicycle and pedestrian routes for commuter, school and recreational use.
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-60
• Objective: Promote the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians by adhering to citywide standards and practices.
• Policies:

Develop citywide standards for construction and maintenance of bikeways and pedestrian walkways.

Develop and adopt a planned bikeway system that is consistent with the County of Orange Master Plan of County-wide Bikeways, and other adopted Master Plans, to assure that local bicycle routes will be compatible with routes or neighboring jurisdictions.

Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and require new development to provide pedestrian walkways between developments, schools, and public facilities.

Where appropriate, require proposed developments adjacent to proposed bikeway routes to include bicycle paths or lanes in their street improvement plans and to construct the bicycle paths or lanes as a condition of approval.

Construct safe, convenient paths for bicycles and pedestrians so as to encourage these alternative forms of transportation.

Require plans for bicycle and pedestrian facilities to give priority to providing continuity and closing gaps in the bikeway and sidewalk network.

Develop programs that encourage the safe utilization of easements and/or rights-of-way along flood control channels, public utilities, railroads, and streets wherever possible for the use of bicycles and/or pedestrians.

Develop a comprehensive pedestrian circulation plan that facilitates pedestrian traffic in major activity areas.

Ensure accessibility of pedestrian facilities to the elderly and disabled.

Require the installation of sidewalks with all new roadway construction and significant reconstruction of existing roadways.

Develop a plan and pursue funding for bicycle support facilities and cycling education/information programs.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-61

3.17.2 Environmental Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation systems, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the Project would result in an increase in demand for public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian systems, which would require the improvement and expansion of the circulation system, in addition to what was evaluated in the Housing Element Update. As such, an evaluation of the policies addressing potential impacts to these facilities is required, and this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR.
b) Would the project conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
The proposed Project would change the City’s zoning code to allow for increased and densified residential development at the identified Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the city. Traffic generated by future Project implementation, in additional to regional growth, could contribute to already congested traffic conditions in and around the City. In accordance with the City’s VMT guidelines, the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM), or another similar model as approved by the City Engineer, would be used to evaluate the Project’s potential impact on VMT. As such, an evaluation of Project consistency with the applicable VMT thresholds is required, and this potentially significant impact will be further analyzed in the EIR.
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
As with the General Plan, Project implementation would result in the alteration and intensification of existing land uses in the city. Therefore, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would require individual evaluations of the roadway alignments, intersection geometrics, and traffic control features. Roadway improvements would be made in accordance with applicable roadway design guidelines, as well as the Caltrans Roadway Design Manual, in addition to the General Plan Circulation Element policies pertaining to roadway design and improving the safety of all users of the transportation system. Therefore, with adherence to all applicable guidelines, policies and requirements related to roadway design, Project implementation would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-62
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
As stated above, Project implementation would result in the alteration and intensification of existing land uses in the City which could result in inadequate emergency access if the new developments proposed under the Project are not designed to City standards and requirements. As such, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be subject to review and approval by the City’s Public Works Department to evaluate roadway alignments, intersection geometrics, and traffic control features, which would be made in accordance with all applicable local and state requirements related to emergency access and the safety of all users of the transportation system. Therefore, with adherence to all applicable guidelines, policies and requirements related to roadway design and emergency access requirements, Project implementation would not result in inadequate emergency access, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-63

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code 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 a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code 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 of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth
in subdivision of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe?

3.18.1 Environmental Setting
According to the City’s General Plan, prehistoric occupation of the Seal Beach area was associated with the Gabrielino- Native Americans, who inhabited much of northern Orange County. The Gabrielinos were known for high population densities, complex social organization, and highly developed maritime economies. The Gabrielinos were in an area that extended from Ventura County to the north and San Bernadino County to the east. The tribes maintained a common language, material culture, and ceremonial and political systems. The Gabrielino community of Motuuchey was located in Seal Beach. In addition to the Gabrielino, it is understood that the Juaneno Native Americans, the neighboring tribe to the south, also frequented the Seal Beach area (City of Seal Beach 2003).

3.18.2 Environmental Impact Analysis
a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code 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 a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code 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 of ~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-64
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? i-ii) Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
The County, as the CEQA Lead Agency, will consult with appropriate tribes with the potential for interest in the region. Based on this consultation, it will be identified if the proposed Housing Opportunity Sites are located in an area having the potential for tribal cultural resources. SB 18 states: “Prior to the adoption or any amendment of a general plan or specific plan, a local government must notify the appropriate tribes (on the contact list maintained by the NAHC) of the opportunity to conduct consultations for the purpose of preserving, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places located on land within the local government’s jurisdiction that is affected by the proposed plan adoption or amendment. Tribes have 90 days from the date on which they receive notification to request consultation, unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe.”
In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and SB 18, the City provided notice to the appropriate Native American Tribes on November 15, 2023, inviting them to participate and consult with the City through its AB 52 and SB 18 Native American outreach efforts. The results of the outreach and consultation effort will be described in the EIR. Therefore, this potentially significant impact will be evaluated further in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-65

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or
stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supply available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) 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?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?

3.19.1 Environmental Setting
The City’s current population is served by existing utility and service systems, as described below.

Water
The City a retail water supplier that provides water for its residents and their customers using the imported water supply obtained from its regional wholesaler, MWDOC and local groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the OCWD.

The City’s Water Division operates three active groundwater wells, an active service connection with MWDOC, emergency interconnections with other utilities, two reservoirs with a total storage capacity of seven million gallons (MG), two booster stations, four disinfection sites, approximately 680 hydrants and manages 74.8-mile water mains system with about 5,346 service connections. Water use within the City’s service area has been relatively stable in the past decade with an annual average of 3,482 acre-feet (AF) for potable use. In Fiscal Year 2019-20, the City’s water use was 3,273 AF of potable water (groundwater and imported). In Fiscal Year 2019-20, the City relied on 65 percent groundwater and 35 percent imported water. There is currently no recycled water available for use within the City’s service area (City of Seal Beach 2021).
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-66
Wastewater
The City does not own or operate wastewater treatment facilities but owns and operates the wastewater collection system in its service area that sends all wastewater to Orange County Sanitation District (OC San) for treatment and disposal. The sewer system service area encompasses about 1,705 acres and includes approximately 34 miles of sewer main, serving about 5,000 customers.

Stormwater Drainage
The City has two drainage systems – the sewer and the storm drains. Sewers carry waste to a sewage treatment plant where the water is cleaned and then reused or deposited into the ocean away from beaches. The storm drain system was designed to solely prevent flooding of City streets by carrying excess rainwater out to the ocean. Much of the City’s runoff drains into the Navel Weapons Base with the remainder split between the Pacific Ocean, Coyote Creek, and the San Gabriel River (City of Seal Beach 2023d).

Solid Waste
The City contracts with Republic Services to provide trash, recycling, and green waste collection for all City residents and commercial businesses (City of Seal Beach 2023c).

Other Utilities
Southern California Gas Company is the gas provider and Southern California Edison is the electricity provider for the City. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-67

3.19.2 Environmental Impact Analysis
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electrical power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
The Project sets the framework for future growth and development in the City by providing additional opportunities for development of low- and moderate-income housing and therefore, does not directly result in development. Future housing developments facilitated by the Project would be subject to individual environmental review and would occur incrementally as market conditions allow and at the discretion of the individual property owner. Under implementation of the Project, redevelopment of underutilized sites could accommodate a total of approximately 205 new housing units and potential rezone parcels could accommodate a total of approximately 1,628 new housing units. Based on this, by implementing the Project, the City would be able to provide approximately 1,833 additional housing units.

The addition of approximately 1,833 additional housing units would result in increased demand to water, wastewater, stormwater, and other utilities and its facilities. This increase in demand could require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded utility facilities and could result in a potentially significant impact. Therefore, this impact will be evaluated in the EIR. b) Would the project have sufficient water supply available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the Project could result in approximately 1,833 additional housing units in the City which would increase demand for water supply. The Project would require an evaluation of water supply needs, which would include an analysis of the sufficiency of available and new water supplies to serve the Project, in addition to reasonably foreseeable development. As such, this potentially significant impact will be evaluated in the EIR.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that is has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
Implementation of the Project could result in approximately 1,833 additional housing units in the City which would increase demand for wastewater treatment. This increased demand could result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it does not have capacity to serve the projected demand and could result in a potentially significant impact. Therefore, this impact will be evaluated in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-68
d) Would the project 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?
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
According to CalRecycle, in 2022 the City’s residential population had a solid waste disposal rate of 6.3 pounds per day per person, and the City had a total disposal amount of 28,468 tons annually (CalRecycle 2022). According to the DOF, as of January 2023, the City is estimated to have a persons per household rate of 1.83 persons per household (DOF 2023). Therefore, as implementation of the Project would provide approximately 1,833 additional housing units to the City, the 1,833 additional units would be anticipated to result in a population of 3,354 people. Using the disposal rate provided by CalRecycle, the 3,354 residents would result in a generation of approximately 21,130 pounds per day (10.6 tons per day) of solid waste. This would result in an increase of 3,869 tons of solid waste generated by the City annually. As identified previously, the City had a total annual disposal amount of 28,468 tons in 2022. The potential increase in solid waste generated by implementation of the Project would represent a 14 percent increase in solid waste generated by the City per day and annually. This is not anticipated to result in significant impacts, as buildout of the additional residential units would take place over time and solid waste generated would increase incrementally over time as the additional residential units are constructed.

Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.025, Recycling and Solid Waste Facilities, which includes standards for solid waste and recycling areas. Additionally, construction activities associated with development of the Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the Housing Element Update would be required to comply with all City construction and demolition waste requirements. City Municipal Code Chapter 9.65, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste, outlines requirements such as preparation of a waste management plan, diversion requirements for construction and demolition debris, and reporting requirements. Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would not generate solid waste in excess of standards or capacity of infrastructures and impacts would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Finding: Less Than Significant Impact
Exiting regulations related to solid waste include AB 939 California Integrated Waste Management Act, AB 341, AB 1327 California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991, California Green Buildings Standards Code, and the City Municipal Code Section 11.4.10.025, Recycling and Solid Waste Facilities, and Chapter 9.65, Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste. The Project would be required to adhere to all relevant existing statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including waste diversion and reduction measures adopted by the City. Compliance with existing statutes and regulations would ensure that future residential development resulting from Project implementation are constructed II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-69
and operated in accordance with solid waste statues and regulations, and this impact would be less than significant. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-70

3.20 WILDFIRE

WILDFIRE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) 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?
c) 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?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?

3.20.1 Environmental Setting
The City and Project area are surrounding by urban and developed lands. The neighborhood of College Park West is identified by the City as a community of risk to wildfire as a result of its isolation, proximity to open space areas, topographic conditions, and regional wind patterns (City of Seal Beach 2003). The Housing Opportunity Sites and surrounding vicinities are not identified as communities at risk and do not contain land designated as a VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 2023a).

The Housing Opportunity Sites are located within the jurisdiction of the OCFA Division 1. The majority of the City, including the Housing Opportunity Sites, are located within a Local Responsibility Area, as much of the City has been identified as have a low risk for wildfire. Furthermore, Federal Responsibility Areas (FRAs) are located in the central portion of the City, encompassing Seal Beach NWR, Joint Forces Training Base, and the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station (CAL FIRE 2023c).

The City’s General Plan Safety Element includes the following goals and policies related to wildfire hazards (City of Seal Beach 2003):
• Policy 1A: Periodically review and update the Emergency Operations Plan to ensure effective implementation of the Plan during an emergency. Incorporate into the Plan as appropriate:
o a citizen response model using a neighborhood coordinate system, such as a Neighborhood Watch program;
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-71
o a comprehensive communications component that maximizes public emergency coordination, response and resource allocation;
o a program of coordination with county, regional, state, and federal emergency agencies, schools, hospitals, and utility companies and their plans; and o a program of coordination with the police.
• Policy 1B: Amend the Emergency Operations Plan to include evacuation plans, and include provisions for emergency shelter, transportation, clothing, food and medical aid, identifying the facilities and persons within the community that may be utilized in an emergency and communicating this information to neighborhood associations and the American Red Cross. • Policy 4A: Ensure that adequate facilities and fire service personnel are maintained based on population, fire hazards in and around the City and a performance standard of an average total reflect time of seven minutes or less.
• Policy 4B: Educate and inform the public on fire safety, especially regarding landscaping installation and maintenance in urban areas, to further protect the community and the environment from unnecessary fire hazards.
• Policy 4C: Enhance the ability of all structures within the City to resist wildland and structural fires throughout ongoing, appropriate and cost-effective changes to the City’s Zoning, Building and Fire Codes and standards.
• Policy 4D: Work with the Water Department and OCFA to analyze the supply and delivery of the water system for fire fighting use to help identify and correct deficiencies. • Policy 4E: Develop and early warning system of Santa Ana wind fire danger to alert the public of possible precautions or safety measures that may be taken during those critical times. • Policy 4F: As a condition of new development, require private responsibility for development and maintenance necessary new fire flow water lines and hydrants in accordance with the recommendations of OCFA.
• Policy 4G: Encourage property owners to create defensible space surrounding their homes, including providing access for firefighters, maintaining planting and outdoor areas, and minimizing combustible structures.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-72

3.20.2 Environmental Impact Analysis
a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: No Impact
Project implementation would not occur within a SRA or VHFHSZ. Furthermore, the City has prepared an EOP and a LHMP to ensure protection of City residents in times of emergency and to identify local hazards and provide measures to address these hazards (City of Seal Beach 2017). Future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to comply with applicable fire and building codes and would be required to be reviewed by OCFA’s Community Risk Reduction Division prior to approval. Additionally, Project implementation would be required to comply with policies identified in the General Plan to ensure effective emergency response. Compliance with General Plan policies, applicable fire and building codes, and the City’s Emergency Operations Plan and LHMP would ensure that Project implementation would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, and there would be no impact. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR.
b) Would the project 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?
c) Would the project 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? d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
b-d) Finding: No Impact
The Project proposes rezoning program to accommodate the planning of low- and moderate-income housing, as required by the state’s RHNA allocation for the City. As Project implementation would not occur within an SRA or VHFHSZ, the Project would entail the redevelopment and rezoning of the Housing Opportunity Sites identified in the Housing Element Update. Future development resulting from Project implementation would be required to adhere to a wide range of state and local codes pertaining to fire protection and would be required to comply with OCFA requirements. Adherence to City and County requirements and Project review by the OCFA Community Risk Reduction Division would minimize impacts resulting from Project implementation to the extent possible and would ensure that new development would not exacerbate fire hazards and would not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with post-fire landslides, mudflows, and flooding. Therefore, with implementation of applicable state and local codes and adherence to the City and County requirements, Project II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-73
implementation would not exacerbate fire risks or expose people or structures to significant risks, and there would be no impact.

Project implementation would result in the parcels being converted for additional housing and would result in construction and installation of associated infrastructure to accommodate new development.

Associated infrastructure would be constructed in accordance with City and County requirements and regulations and would be required to adhere to the measures in the individual requirements for new infrastructure to minimize potential impacts. Additionally, future residential development resulting from Project implementation would be required to implement General Plan policies identified to minimize risk from wildfire hazards. With adherence to applicable building practices and requirements, infrastructure associated with Project implementation would not exacerbate fire risk, and there would be no impact. As such, this topic does not require further evaluation in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-74

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulative considerable? (“Cumulative considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a Project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects)?
c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?

3.21.1 Environmental Impact Analysis
a) Would the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
Project implementation would result in potentially significant impacts to biological and cultural resources, and these impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR. Consultation pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18 is currently being conducted and has not yet been completed at the time of this document. As such, impacts related to tribal cultural resources are potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR. b) Would the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? (“Cumulative considerable” means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects)? Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
The proposed Project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future related projects, has the potential to result in significant cumulative impacts when the independent impacts of the ~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □
~ □ □ □

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Environmental Setting, Analysis, and Mitigation Measures 3-75
proposed Project and the impacts of related projects combine to create impacts greater than those of the proposed Project alone. A list of the related projects or growth projections will be developed for the EIR.

The potential for the proposed Project in conjunction with the related projects and their cumulative contributions to environmental impacts will be evaluated in the EIR.

The cumulative impacts addressed in the EIR will be the same as the individual resource areas which will be evaluated in the EIR. The extent and significance of potential cumulative impacts resulting from the combined effects of the proposed Project plus other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will be evaluated in the EIR.
c) Would the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Finding: Potentially Significant Impact
As described in this Initial Study, implementation of the proposed Project could result in impacts to human beings resulting from potential air quality and GHG emissions, noise, transportation, and water quality impacts. Therefore, further analysis of these potential impacts is required, and potential impacts will be evaluated in the EIR. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
Report Preparation
4-1

4.0 REPORT PREPARATION

4.1 LIST OF PREPARERS
Preparers
Trevor Macenski Senior Principal; Principal in Charge
Anna Radonich Principal Environmental Planner; Project Manager Emily Medler Environmental Planner
Jennifer Webster Environmental Planner
Kaela Johnson Environmental Planner; GIS II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
References
5-1

5.0 REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2023a. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed August 2023.

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2023b. CGS Information Warehouse: Mineral Land Classification. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc.

Accessed August 2023.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2013. NCCP Plan Summary – Orange County Transportation Authority NCCP/HCP - Natural Community and Land Cover Types. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=65795&inline. Accessed August 2023.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023. NCCP Plan Summary – Orange County Transportation Authority NCCP/HCP.
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/Plans/OCTA. Accessed August 2023.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2023a Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area, June 15, 2023. https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693d 008. Accessed August 2023.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2023b. Forest Practice Watershed Mapper v2. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/Watershed_Mapper/. Accessed August 2023.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2023c. State Responsibility Area (SRA) Viewer. https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=468717e399fa4238ad86861638765 ce1. Accessed August 2023.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2022. Disposal Rate Calculator – Seal Beach, 2022.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DisposalRateCalculator. Accessed August 2023.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2019. 2018 Power Content Label Submitted by Southern California Edison, Version July 2019. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 01/2018_PCL_Southern_California_Edison.pdf. Accessed August 2023.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2023a. Electricity Consumption by Entity. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx. Accessed August 2023.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2023b. Gas Consumption by Entity. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx. Accessed August 2023.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
References
5-2
California Geologic Survey (CGS). 2023. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigations. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed August 2023.

California Public Utilities Commission. 2023. Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/rps/. Accessed August 2023.

City of Seal Beach. 2003. City of Seal Beach General Plan, December 2003. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/PlanningDevelopment/General-Plan. Accessed August 2023.

City of Seal Beach. 2013. Zoning Map (Index) – Updated March 2013. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/MainIndexForZoningMaps_2013.pdf.

Accessed August 2023.

City of Seal Beach. 2017. Emergency Operations Plan.
https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Basic%20Plan%20September%20Combined %20(Final3%20111417).pdf?ver=2018-02-03-023025-607. Accessed August 2023.

City of Seal Beach. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Final Draft, June 2021. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Public%20Works/Seal%20Beach%202020%2 0UWMP%20FINAL%20DRAFT-2021.05.27.pdf?ver=2021-06-01-161424-263. Accessed August 2023.

City of Seal Beach. 2023a. City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element – Updated August 24, 2023. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Housing%20Element/SB_HousingElement_Draft%20Aug%202023%20Introduction%20and%20Needs%20Assessment%20Redline .pdf?ver=2023-08-24-140025-913&timestamp=1692911346061. Accessed October 2023.

City of Seal Beach. 2023b. City of Seal Beach Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, Draft May 2023. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Seal%20Beach%20LUP_DRAFT%20compre ssed.pdf?ver=2023-05-09-154143-560. Accessed August 2023.

City of Seal Beach. 2023c. City of Seal Beach Public Works Department – Maintenance Operations Division – Trash & Recycling. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/PublicWorks/Maintenance-Operations#trash_recycling. Accessed August 2023.

City of Seal Beach. 2023d. City of Seal Beach Public Works Department – Storm Water & NPDES. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Public-Works/Storm-Water-NPDES. Accessed August 2023.

City of Seal Beach. 2023e. Seal Beach, California Municipal Code. https://library.qcode.us/lib/seal_beach_ca/pub/municipal_code. Accessed August 2023.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
References
5-3
City of Seal Beach. 2023f. Transportation Services. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/CityServices/Transportation-Services. Accessed August 2023.

California Department of Finance (DOF). 2023. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2023, with 2020 Benchmark, May 2023. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-forcities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2023/. Accessed August 2023.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2023. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search. Accessed August 2023.

Los Alamitos Unifies School District. (2003). Our District. https://www.losal.org/our-district. Accessed August 2023.

Los Angeles County. 2004. Airport Land Use Commission Comprehensive Land Use Plan. https://planning.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Los-Angeles-County-Airport-Land-UsePlan.pdf. Accessed November 2023.

Orange County. 2013. County of Orange General Plan – Resources Element, December 2013. https://ocds.ocpublicworks.com/sites/ocpwocds/files/import/data/files/40235.pdf. Accessed August 2023.

Orange County. 2023. Orange County Landbase. https://www.ocgis.com/ocpw/landrecords/. Accessed August 2023.

Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). 2023. Orange County Fire Authority website – Member Cities. https://ocfa.org/AboutUs/PartnerCities.aspx. Accessed August 2023.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023. GeoTracker database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Search+GeoTracker.

Accessed August 2023.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan. 2021. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/6th_cycle_final_rhna_allocation_plan_070121. pdf?1646938785 . Accessed September 2023.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment. 2023. https://scag.ca.gov/rhna. Accessed September 2023.

Southern California Edison (SCE). 2019. Southern California Edison’s Service Area. https://newsroom.edison.com/internal_redirect/cms.ipressroom.com.s3.amazonaws.com/166/files /20193/SCE%20Service%20Area%20Fact%20Sheet_Ver2_04252019.pdf. Accessed August 2023.

Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). 2023. Company Profile. https://www.socalgas.com/aboutus/company-profile. Accessed August 2023. II

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES Initial Study
References
5-4
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023a. Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. https://www.fws.gov/refuge/seal-beach. Accessed August 2023.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023b. Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge – Species. https://www.fws.gov/refuge/seal-beach/species. Accessed August 2023.

WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED AS PART OF NOP

PUBLIC SCOPING PROCESS
Megan Coats
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Greetings,
Alejandro Sanchez-Lopez <[email protected]> Friday, December 15, 2023 4:42 PM
Alexa Smittle
Alison Spindler-Ruiz
City of Long Beach public comment on the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Environmental Impact Report Seal Beach Housing Element EIR Letter of Support.pdf
Please find attached public comment submitted on behalf of the City of Long Beach's Community Development Department regarding City of Seal Beach's Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project) Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.

Best,
Alejandro Sanchez-Lopez
Advance Planning Officer
Community Development I Planning Bureau/ Advance Planning Division 411 W. Ocean Blvd., 3rd Fl. I Long Beach, CA 90802
Office: 562.570.6553

LONG BEACH

COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT

CITY OF

LONG BEACH
December 15, 2023
Alexa Smittle
City of Seal Beach
Community Development Department
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Dear Ms. Smittle:

Community Development Department
Planning Bureau
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802 562.570.6194
On behalf of the Community Development Department for the City of Long Beach, I am writing this letter in strong support of the City of Seal Beach's Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) adopted on February 7, 2022 and updated August 24, 2023. This endeavor showcases the City's commitment to addressing the regional housing crisis while adhering to state legislation and the current Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

The Housing Element includes provisions for our most vulnerable populations allocating 459 of 1,243 new units for low- and very low-income households, such as unhoused people, seniors, single-parent households, large families, and persons with disabilities. These allocations align with Long Beach's goals and commitment to foster and protect our diverse communities and ensure housing opportunities are accessible for everyone. Moreover, we appreciate the effort to locate and utilize underdeveloped sites across the city in order to not overly concentrate lower income housing in low-resource areas and to create a "buffer" of 15 to 30 percent above the stated RHNA allocation to account for "No Net Loss" provisions of Senate Bill 166. This will guarantee much-needed housing that is sufficient for the growing regional population and protect hard-working families. The EIR shows that the Project has provided necessary environmental evaluations, analysis, and mitigation measures in terms of air quality, greenhouse gases, and transportation. The fact that the Housing Element will provide housing in various locations across the city allows for equitable and sustainable growth, and a more responsive and resilient community.

We encourage the City to ensure that sites are designated for low- and moderate-income housing and that if market-rate housing is approved on these sites, new sites are identified and approved for low-income housing throughout the City to make up for lost capacity and maintain geographic equity. Further, we believe the City should maximize public participation and engage not only affected property owners, the Building Industry Association, and affordable housing developers, but also community members, non-profit organizations, faith-based institutions,

CITY OF

LONG BEACH
Community Development Department
Planning Bureau
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802 562.570.6194
renter associations, and the populations they are trying to protect during the entirety of this rezoning effort.

We believe the Project will provide affordable housing in opportunity areas, alleviate zoning constraints on the current housing inventory, and help achieve regional and state housing goals.

The City of Long Beach Planning Bureau supports the Project and its associated EIR and looks forward to collaborating with Seal Beach in our shared efforts to provide inclusive and equitable fair housing opportunities for all.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your dedication to building a sustainable future.

Sincerely,
A&fandw sanc/4J-urJ
Alejandro Sanchez-Lopez
Advance Planning Officer
Long Beach Community Development
562. 570. 6553
[email protected]
Megan Coats
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Hello Ms. Smittle,
Lugaro, Julie M@DOT <[email protected]>
Friday, December 15, 2023 3:05 PM
Alexa Smittle
OPR State Clearinghouse
Comment Letter for the for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project - 12-ORA-2023-02430
City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project - 12- ORA-2023-02430.pdf
I have attached the Comment Letter for the for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project-12-ORA-2023-02430.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Thank you,
Julie Lugaro, M.S.

Associate Transportation Planner
Local Development Review/ Climate Change Coordinator
California Department of Transportation
Caltrans, District 12
1750 E. 4th Street
Santa Ana, CA. 92705
1 CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
California Department of Transportation
DISTRICT 12
1750 East 4th Street. Suite 100 I SANTA ANA. CA 92705
(657) 328-6000 I FAX (657) 328-6522 TTY 711
https://do l.ca .gov /ca ltrans-near-me/distric t-12
December 15, 2023
Ms. Alexa Smittle
Community Development Director
City of Seal Beach
211 Eighth Street
Seal Beach, CA. 907 40
Dear Ms. Smittle,
GAVIN NEWSOM. GOVERNOR
• •
lb/trans
File: LDR/CEQA
SCH:2023110425
12-ORA-2023-02430
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the review of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project.

The Initial Study was prepared to analyze potential impacts related to implementation of the City's Housing Element and Zoning Code Update. The Housing Element identifies 13 Housing Opportunity Sites throughout the City that have the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. 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.

Of the 13 Housing Opportunity Sites, six would require rezoning, one would be rezoned through a proposed Specific Plan, and one would require an amendment to the Main Street Specific Plan. The rezoning effort would also include the establishment of a new zoning designation, MC/RHO, which would apply to five of the Housing Opportunity Sites. This new zone district would facilitate housing for lower-income households as required by the state's RHNA allocation for the City and facilitate the inc lusion of affordable units. Implementation of the Housing Element and Zoning Code Update would result in the City being able to accommodate 1,833 additional housing units pursuant to the City's RHNA allocation.

The Project site is c urrently comprised of 13 Housing Opportunity Sites dispersed throughout the City totaling approximately 278 acres. The City located at the northwestern edge of Orange County (County), California. It borders the City of Long Beac h 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 City has a land area of approximately 13 square "Provide a safe and reliable transportation nelwork that serves all people and respects the environment" City of Seal Beach
December 15, 2023

Page 2 ends

Seal Beach City CouncilOctober 27, 2025

Seal Beach City Council
October 27, 2025