Agenda packet, first session — Seal Beach City Council, October 27, 2025 (part 9 of 11)

1.2.2 Law: Water Code Section 10912
For the purpose of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a) "Project" means any of the following:

1. A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units.

2. A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space.

3. A proposed commercial building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor area.

4. A hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms.

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Introduction
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 14

5. A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.

6. A mixed-use project that includes one or more specified in this subdivision.

7. A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling unit project.

1.3 PROJECT RELATION TO URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
The City is a retail water supplier for the Project, except for Site 4 - The Shops at Rossmoor, which will be served by another retail water supplier, Golden State Water Company (GSWC) West Orange. The City prepared a 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (Appendix A), that was adopted by City Council in June 2021. GSWC also prepared a 2020 UWMP for their West Orange Service Area, (Appendix A), which was adopted in July 2021. This WSA relies on the information contained in both 2020 UWMPs and references it in the following supply and demand analysis. Both the City and GSWC meet their demands with a combination of imported water and local groundwater. It is projected that for each year noted in the UWMPs including 2045, the supply will match the projected demand. There is adequate Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) water supply through MWDOC available to both the City and GSWC, should the need arise. It is assumed the Project falls under CWC Section 10910 (c) (3), as no portion of the Project was accounted for either 2020 UWMP.

1.3.1 Law: Water Code Section 10910(c)
(1) The city or county, at the time it makes the determination required under Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code [CEQA], shall request each public water system identified pursuant to subdivision (b) to determine whether the projected water demand associated with a proposed project was included as part of the most recently adopted urban water management plan adopted pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610).
(2) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, the public water system may incorporate the requested information from the urban water management plan in preparing the elements of the assessment required to comply with subdivisions (d), (e), (f), and (g).
(3) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was not accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, or the public water system has no urban water management plan, the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system's total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system's existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Introduction
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 15 (4) If the city or county is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the total projected water supplies, determined to be available by the city or county for the project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.

1.4 HOUSING OPPORTUNITY SITE LAND USES

1.4.1 Existing Land Uses
The City’s current base zoning and overlay districts, including the General Plan land use designation implemented by zoning designation from Section 3.5 of the UWMP, are provided in Table 1-1 below.

Table 1-1: Current Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations1 Zoning Abbreviation General Plan Designation
Implemented by Zoning
Base Residential Zoning Districts
Residential Low Density – 9 a RLD-9 Residential Low Density Residential Low Density – 15 a RLD-15 Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density – 18 b RMD-18 Residential Medium Density Residential High Density – 20 c RHD-20 Residential High Density Residential High Density – 33 c RHD-33 Residential High Density Residential High Density – 46 c RHD-46 Residential High Density Base Mixed-Use, Commercial, and Industrial Districts
Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density d 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
1 City of Seal Beach, General Plan Zoning Map, 2013; City of Seal Beach Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance, Chapter

11.1.05.030, 2021
IJ

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Introduction
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 16 Zoning Abbreviation General Plan Designation
Implemented by Zoning
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
Notes:
a Single-unit and small, zero-lot line neighborhoods at a base density up to 9 or 15 dwelling units per net acre. 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.

1.4.2 Proposed Land Uses
As previously mentioned, the Housing Element Update identifies eight Sites throughout the City that have the potential for providing additional housing. The City is nearly built-out with almost no vacant developable land remaining. Therefore, the City must rely primarily on non-vacant sites to increase the City’s housing potential. As demonstrated in Table 1-2 and Table 1-3 below, the Sites consists of two categories:
(a) underutilized sites that do not require zoning code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed.

Table 1-2: Underutilized Sites Inventory (Rezoning Not Required)2 2 City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, 2024.

Site
No.

Site Name Address
(APN)
Approx. Acres Developable
Acres
Current General
Plan Zoning
1 1780 Pacific Coast
Hwy
199-061-01 0.25 0.25 Limited Commercial/ RMD-20
2 Leisure World 095-691-04 5.5 5.5 Residential High Density – Planned Community
IJ

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Introduction
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 17 Table 1-3: Rezoned Sites Inventory3
Site
No.

Site Name Address (APN) Approx.

Acres
Developable
Acres
Current
General Plan
Zoning
Proposed
General Plan
Zoning
3 Accurate
Storage
095-791-18 4 1.8 RHD-20 MU 46*
4 The Shops at
Rossmoor
086-492-51 27 12 GC MU
5 Old Ranch
Town Center
130-861-14, -15,
-16, -17, -18, -19,
-20, -21, -22, -23,
-24, -25, -26, -27
26 8.3 GC MU
6 Seal Beach
Plaza
095-641-44, -49,
-55, -56, -57
7 1.5 CS-SC CS/SC and
MU-O
7 Seal Beach
Center
043-260-02, -05 9 2.7 SC SC/MU-O
8 99 Marina
Drive
199-011-10 4.3 3 OE RHD/RHD-20
Notes: * The current MU is only associated with LC/RMD. A new mixed-use zoning category would need to be created to facilitate a density equivalent to RHD-46.

Though all Housing Opportunity Sites are within the City of Seal Beach, Site No. 4 – The Shops at Rossmoor is anticipated to be served water by GSWC and not the City of Seal Beach. The remaining seven Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program are anticipated to be served by the City of Seal Beach.

The Housing Element Update currently includes descriptions for the Housing Opportunity Sites, with an explanation of the methodology for selecting the sites that are currently developed with various uses An in-depth description of each Housing Opportunity Site is provided below (Seal Beach 2022).

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) 3 City of Seal Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Update, 2024.

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Introduction
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 18 Reason For Selection: This parcel is developed with an older commercial building currently occupied by a liquor/convenience store. Due to the age and marginal condition of the structure, taken in combination with the value of the land, this site is an excellent and likely candidate for redevelopment with a new residential or mixed-use project. It is immediately adjacent to housing, with excellent access to goods and services.

Assumed Development Capacity: This zoning designation allows residential use at up to 21.8 units/acre.

The site can reasonably accommodate ground floor commercial use and parking with four second-story housing units. Because of its maximum allowable density, this parcel has been listed in the moderateincome site inventory.

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 miles 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: This is an underutilized site in a community that, while not income-restricted, offers very affordable living options, with units selling far below the cost of condominiums elsewhere in the region. For example, a one-bedroom unit may be found for under $300,000 while elsewhere pricing starts in the $500,000 range. More than 75 percent of the population in Leisure World consists of low- to moderate-income households. Additionally, the community is already developed to higher densities, with a few buildings at three stories with parking underneath. Additional units could integrate well into the community and could spread ongoing maintenance and operational costs among a greater number of owners, helping to keep those costs in an affordable range. Furthermore, such development has precedent. The series of three-story buildings referenced, known as Mutual 17, were built in the 1980s, well after the rest of Leisure World was developed, and include 126 2-bedroom, 2-bath condominiums on a little less than five acres. As only one percent of the site is proposed for redevelopment, and adequately sized common areas are present, the existing uses will not impede the anticipated amount of residential development. A development proposal at this site can be approved administratively. No additional zoning revisions are needed.

Assumed Development Capacity: An additional 125 moderate-income units can be accommodated on approximately 5.5 acres presently devoted to recreational vehicle storage at a density of 32.2 units to an acre. New three-story buildings can accommodate parking on the ground level with units above.

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Introduction
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 19 Site 3 – Accurate Storage (Rezoning Required)
Location: 1011 Seal Beach Boulevard. This site is bordered by office, commercial and light industrial uses to the north and west, by the City Police Station across Adolfo Lopez Drive to the south, and by the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station across Seal Beach Boulevard to the east.

Size: 4.4 acres
Current use: Self storage facility
Current zoning: High Density Residential (RHD-20)
Reason for selection: This site was previously selected as a candidate housing site due to underutilized parking, location close to services, and interest from the property owner. There are no known environmental constraints on this property, and the site has good access to employment and transit routes. Due to the high land value and relatively low utilization, there is significant financial incentive for residential development on this property.

Assumed Development Capacity: As the current zoning did not result in redevelopment of this site with residential uses, the development assumptions have been revised. The improvement value to land value is less than 1.0 (0.54), indicating a likelihood for redevelopment, with conversion of the outdoor storage being the most likely to intensify in value. The indoor storage could remain in place and not be an impediment to development due to the site plan and overall quality of development and maintenance of the site. Therefore, it is assumed that only 1.8 acres of the site will redevelop to housing, instead of the entire 4.4 acres. This site is proposed for rezoning to a maximum density of 46 units per acre that will enhance the financial viability of adding residences to the site. Development of 1.8 acres could yield 66 above-moderate units, or more if a density bonus is employed. However, given the need to design around existing buildings, the projected number of units has been reduced to 59. Because the presumed developable area is less than 2 acres, this site uses a conservative estimate of only 10 percent at lowerincome and 10 percent at moderate income, despite a proposed density of 46 units per acre.

Site 4 – The Shops at Rossmoor (Rezoning Required)
Location: This multi-address retail center is 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 ratio of improvement value to land value is less than 1.0 (0.85), meaning the site is economically underutilized, despite being a generally successful IJ

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Introduction
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 20 retail center. However, with a number of “big box” type tenants subject to changes in the retail landscape, this center is vulnerable to store closures that could result in significant vacant space. A new mixed-use zone would allow for greater flexibility to utilize the land, and by adding housing units, increase the viability of the retail that remains. Additionally, high density residential already exists along the western edge of the retail center, increasing compatibility of the use.

Assumed development capacity: The site is 27 acres, and surface parking occupies approximately 19 acres. It is assumed that approximately 12 acres of surface parking could be developed with housing, at a proposed 46 units per acre, resulting in 441 units, exclusive of a density bonus. Because of the ample development potential and therefore ability to achieve economies of scale, Table projects 276 units at lower-income, 14 units at moderate-income, and 151 at above-moderate-income.

The Shops at Rossmoor is anticipated to be served water by Golden State Water Company (GSWC).

Site 5 – Old Ranch Town Center (Rezoning Required)
Location: This multi-address retail center is on the east side of Seal Beach Boulevard, between the Old Ranch Country Club golf course and Plymouth Drive.

Size: 26 acres
Current use: Retail center including stores such as Target and Ralph’s supermarket.

Current zoning: General Commercial (GC)
Reason for selection: Like the Shops at Rossmoor, the Old Ranch Town Center has a significant amount of underutilized parking, and primarily big box uses. Currently, the former Bed Bath and Beyond store is vacant. The addition of housing to this site is feasible as it is immediately adjacent to goods and services, has excellent access along a major thoroughfare, and can integrate well with the scale of the existing development, bolstering retail uses with on-site residents. The improvement to land value ranges by parcel, with the largest parcel at 0.95 and the second largest parcel at 0.07, demonstrating ripeness for additional development.

Assumed development capacity: It is assumed approximately 8.3 acres of the surface parking lot of the center could be developed or redeveloped with housing uses, creating a mixed-use environment at 46 units per acre, for a total of 306 units. Because of the ample development potential and therefore ability to achieve economies of scale, as well as density over 30 dwelling units per acre, this site estimates 258 units at lower-income and 48 at moderate-income. Due to its proximity to the Joint Forces Training Base, all residential units would be conditioned to meet interior noise level standards of 45 decibels, however, this is not an obstacle to development as this is also the standard in the California Building Code.

Housing currently exists to the north and northeast of the site, also adjacent to the Joint Forces Training Base.

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Introduction
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 21 Site 6 – 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 has a low improvement value to land value ratio at 0.72 and has experienced some large tenant turnover in the past, which could indicate a need to reposition the site for long-term success in the future. Like other retail plazas, it is underutilized with large parking areas. The site offers excellent access to goods and services, and augmenting the site with housing would benefit the on-site retailers. The adjacent Leisure World utilizes higher densities, and the Naval Weapons Station is immediately east, and is not a conflicting use.

Assumed development capacity: This site can be redeveloped entirely or partially as a mixed-use project.

Assuming that residential uses are developed on 1.5 acres of surface parking at the site at a base density of 46 du/acre, 55 moderate-income units could be accommodated following adoption of a new mixed-use zoning district.

Site 7 – Seal Beach Center (Rezoning Required)
Location: This retail plaza is located on Pacific Coast Highway, between Balboa Drive and Bolsa Avenue.

It is directly across Pacific Coast Highway from Main Street, the commercial core of the Old Town area.

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 improvement value to land value ratio of 0.72, indicating it is underutilized and could perform to a higher capacity. Its location provides excellent walkability and access to goods and services, including an elementary school. A small mixed-use project could be undertaken using available parking and redeveloping portions of the site with housing above retail. Moreover, the property representatives have expressed an interest in mixed use as a future possibility to increase site utility.

Assumed development capacity: With a mixed-use zoning allowing up to 46 units per acre, and 2.7 acres of surface parking, the capacity would be 99 above-moderate units without using a density bonus.

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Introduction
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 22 Site 8 – 99 Marina Drive (Rezoning Required)
Location: 99 Marina Drive, northeast of Marina Drive and First Street intersection.

Size: 4.3 acres
Current use: Vacant. At some point, a handball court was constructed on the western edge of the property and the City maintains a small section of the property around the court primarily for safety reasons as the court is located adjacent to a public park.

Current zoning: Oil Extraction (OE)
Reason for selection: Previously a site that supported oil extraction in the area, the current owners (Exxon and Chevron) are actively marketing the property. Based on inquiries received by City staff from potential buyers, as well as the surrounding residential uses, housing development makes the most sense and is generally expected by the community.

Assumed development capacity: A density of 33 units per acre is proposed at this site to meet the 30- du/ac default density thresholds established under Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)).

However, this location may have additional development standards imposed by the Coastal Commission, similar to the adjacent development, where a portion of the site was left as open space. Thus, the total housing production expected at the site is 69 units, all of which are assumed to be above moderate, to be extremely conservative.

1.5 PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

1.5.1 Public Water System Infrastructure – City of Seal Beach The City of Seal Beach 2012 Water Master Plan Update (Master Plan) provided an evaluation of the City’s water supply system to develop guidelines for the construction of new and replacement facilities.

The objective of this Master Plan was to develop the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) consisting of projects that would enhance, maintain, or replace aging facilities through 2014-2021. In addition, the CIP is considered a planning tool that will allow construction of the recommended projects to improve the water system and meet system performance criteria for existing and future customers. Although the water system was evaluated in 2012, the development of the housing unit proposed project was not part of the analysis. The City does not have a current Master Plan for years after 2020.

Per the 2012 Master Plan and the 2020 UWMP, the City’s domestic water system consists of 74.8 miles of transmission and distribution system pipes ranging from 4-inch to 20-inch diameter, two booster pump stations, two forebay reservoirs, four production wells, four disinfection sites, 680 fire hydrants, and 5,350 service connections, one imported water supply connection to purchase water from MET and several emergency connections. There are no direct surface-water or recycled water uses in the City’s service area.

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Introduction
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 23 The City’s water system is in a single closed zone system and system pressure is maintained through the imported water supply connection and the booster pump stations, Bolsa Chica Well and Lampson Avenue Well. The service area is divided into several communities such as Old Town, Bridgeport, Marina Hill, Hellman Ranch, the Boeing and police facilities, City yard, surfside, Leisure World Retirement Community, College Park East and West, Bixby Old Ranch and Old Ranch Golf Course, the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, Sunset Aquatic Park, and the U.S. Naval Weapons Station. City’s service area has been stable with an annual average of 3,482-acre feet (AF) for potable use. City’s water demands are met through a combination of imported water and local groundwater.

1.5.2 Public Water System Infrastructure – GSWC West Orange Service Area 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.

Per GSWCs 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, the City of Buena Park, and GWSC’s Artesia System.

1.5.3 Public Water System Supply
As mentioned previously, the City of Seal Beach and Golden State Water Company West Orange Service Area use a combination of imported water and groundwater to supply their customers. Each water supply is summarized below:

1.5.3.1 Imported Water
Imported water purchased from MET is supplied to the City by MWDOC via West Orange County Water Board. The connection, OC-35, is located at Springdale Street and Westminster Avenue and is shared with the City of Huntington Beach, who is responsible for managing, maintaining, and operating the facility. The maximum capacity for the City’s connection is 9.9 cubic feet per second (cfs). In FY 2019-20, the City relied on approximately 1,132-acre feet per year (AFY) of imported water, 35% of the City’s total water supply, to meet its demands.

The City imports an average of 0.5 AF per month from September through June for the purpose of flushing the transmission main of stagnant water. Flushing is performed sporadically when disinfection levels fall below a certain threshold. The City of Huntington Beach monitors the City of Seal Beach’s portion of the OC-35 connection and controls conveyance. Historically, the City switches over to import water during the months of July and August. During these two months, the City typically maintains a IJ

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Introduction
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 24 flowrate between 3-5 cfs. A flow rate higher than 6 cfs is seldom needed. The only occasions where the flow would be close to the maximum capacity of 9.9 cfs is if there is a large water main break or a fire flow demand.

GSWC also purchases MET water from MWDOC and manages the allocations of the supplies among the Placentia-Yorba Linda and the West Orange Service Areas to meet both service areas needs and reduce costs for their customers. The West Orange Service Area purchased an average of 713 AF over 2016 to 2020, with 2019 and 2020 purchases being less than 75 AF.

GSWC also purchases a small amount of potable water from the City of Seal Beach through its existing connection to the City. In 2020, GSWC purchased 34 AF from the City of Seal Beach.

See Section 3.3.1 for further analysis of imported water sources.

1.5.3.2 Groundwater Production
The City of Seal Beach and GSWC West Orange Service Area pump groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin (OC BASIN). This basin is managed by Orange County Water District (OCWD) and covers an area of approximately 350 square miles and the boundary extends to the Orange County-Los Angeles Line northwest.

The City’s water system includes four groundwater wells that include the Bolsa Chica Well, the Beverly Manor Well, the Lampson Avenue Well and the Leisure World Well. As of 2021, Leisure World Well is inactive. Per the City’s UWMP, the groundwater volume pumped in 2016-2020 by the City is relatively stable with the highest volume, 2,400 AF, pumped in 2019. In FY2019-20, the City pumped approximately 2,141 AF of groundwater.

GSWC also produces groundwater within the OC BASIN via fourteen active groundwater wells and pumped an average of 17,000 AFY during 2016 to 2020 with the highest volume, 19,031 AFY, being pumped in 2018 (GSWC 2021).

See Section 3.3.2 for an analysis of groundwater water sources.

1.5.3.3 Emergency Connections
The City is authorized to use water through emergency interconnections with the City of Long Beach, the City of Huntington Beach, the City of Westminster, and Golden State Water Company (GSWC) and it does not currently have plans to introduce new exchanges and transfers. Two reservoirs, Navy and Beverly Manor, store 1.10 MG and 2.38 MG for fire suppression and operational needs respectively per the UWMP. The Navy Booster Station is located within the U.S. Naval Weapons Station, east of Seal Beach Boulevard and north of Bolsa Avenue. Beverly Manor Booster Station is located south of the San Diego Freeway and west of Seal Beach Boulevard.

GSWC West Orange Service Area maintains four emergency interties with four agencies and a combined capacity of over 4,500 gpm. These connections are intended to serve as emergency use for system outages, maintenance, or other supply disruption. These supplies are not included in the supply IJ

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Water Demand Assessment
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 25 projections. In addition to the Seal Beach intertie, emergency interties exist with the City of Garden Grove, City of Buena Park, and GSWC Artesia Service Area. As no use was observed in the last 5 years tables are not presented in this WSA.

1.5.3.4 Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs)
Per the City’s 2020 UWMP, the City anticipates water demand to remain constant over the next 25 years.

The Capital Improvement Program approved by the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget includes several projects to improve the City’s water supply reliability. These projects include renovations of two of the City’s three water supply well facilities, construction of a wellhead treatment plant at the Lampson Well facility, rehabilitation projects at Bolsa Chica and Beverly Manor wells, and a study to replace aging water meters with Advance Metering Infrastructure (AMI), and SCADA Improvements.

Per GSWC’s 2020 UWMP, GSWC has established water rates that support their CIP and operation and maintenance costs. No CIPs were reported in the UWMP.

2.0 WATER DEMAND ASSESSMENT
As mentioned in Section 1.2, Senate Bill 610 stipulates when a project is subject to CEQA, then the appropriate water supply agency must provide an assessment on whether its total projected water supplies (determined by the water supply agency’s UWMP) will meet the projected water demand. In addition, SB221 requires that approval by a city or county of certain residential subdivisions, as defined by California Government Code Section 66473.7(a)(1), must include an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supplies.

This Water Demand Assessment section estimates the Project water demands in addition to the projected water demands from the 2020 UWMPs to address the above requirements of the CWC.

2.1 CURRENT AND PROJECTED WATER DEMAND
In FY2019-20, the City had a service area population of 24,000 people and an actual consumption rate of 95 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) with a total water consumption of 3,272 AF per the 2020 UWMP.

As shown in Table 2-1, this water consumption includes commercial, institutional/governmental, landscape, and losses.

According to the 2020 UWMP, from 2025 to 2045, the City’s residential water demand is projected to decrease, while usage by commercial, industrial, and institutional/governmental is projected to increases.

Demands for large landscape applications are projected to stay consistent, while the volume of losses is projected to slightly increase (although this holds constant as a percentage of total water use). See Table 2-1 for a summary of the City’s current and future population and water demand out to 2045.

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Water Demand Assessment
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 26 Table 2-1: City of Seal Beach Current and Projected Water Demand4 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Population Served 24,000 24,110 24,527 24,652 24,554 24,357 Total Water Demand (AF) 3,272 3,175 3,368 3,342 3,317 3,306 Single/Multi- Family Residential 2,306 2,467 2,442 2,417 2,393 2,382 Commercial 492 490 663 663 663 663
Institutional/Governmental 111 111 150 150 150 150
Landscape 16 24 24 24 24 24
Losses 347 84 89 89 88 88
Per the City’s UWMP, the City’s current population is expected to increase by 1.5% over the next 25 years and the total number of dwelling units is expected to increase from 14,064 in 2020 to 14,171 in 2045. The dwelling unit projection in the UWMP did not include the City’s RHNA allocation nor the Project.

Per GSWC’s 2020 UWMP, GSWC West Orange Service Area’s projected population is based on the 2020 estimated population and projected growth from Southern California Association of Governments (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. See Table 2-2 for a summary of GSWC’s West Orange Service Area projections.

Table 2-2: GSWC Current and Projected Water Demand5
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Population Served 114,235 114,750 115,267 115,787 116,308 116,833 Total Water Demand (AF) 14,173 14,137 14,527 14,926 15,337 15,759 Single Residential 6,601 6,493 6,671 6,855 7,044 7,237
Multi- Family Residential 2,614 2,667 2,740 2,816 2,893 2,973 Commercial 2,936 3,283 3,374 3,467 3,562 3,660
Institutional/Governmental 46 59 61 62 64 66
Landscape 828 810 833 856 879 903
Losses 1,148 825 848 871 895 920

2.2 PROJECT WATER DEMAND
As previously outlined in Section 1.1, the Project proposes the addition of up to 1,606 residential units across eight Sites and the Main Street Program. These locations have existing infrastructure that is 42020 UWMP, City of Seal Beach, June 2021
52020 UWMP, GSWC West Orange Service Area, July 2021, Table 2-1, 4-5 IJ

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Water Demand Assessment
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 27 expected to remain in place. This WSA assumes that while the 2020 UWMPs accounted for the existing demand of these locations in its water demand projections (see Table 2-1), it did not account for the increased water demand resulting from the proposed Project. Therefore, the estimated water demands of these new units must be determined and considered in addition to the amounts projected in the UWMPs.

As previously described in Section 1.1, this WSA will provide a conservative water demand estimate by assuming maximum buildout for the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and 70% of the maximum buildout the Main Street Program. Table 2-3 below summarizes the number of dwelling units of each Project location.

Table 2-3: Summary of Project Potential Dwelling Units
Water demand for the eight Sites and the Main Street Program was estimated by multiplying the total number of dwelling units by a water demand duty factor that the City has established for the residential land use category. This WSA assumes the duty factor includes landscape irrigation water demand within the factor. The estimated project water demand for the eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program is summarized in Table 2-3 below. The annual Project water demand is 361,350 GPD or 405 AFY, however Site 4 - The Shops at Rossmoor are served by GSWC. See Table 2-3 for a summary of estimated water demand for the Project.

Table 2-4: Estimated Project Water Demand
Site No. Developable Area (Acres) Maximum Allowed Density Total DU Housing Opportunity Sites 1,491
1 0.25 21.8 5
2 5.5 32.2 177
3 1.8 46 83
4 12 46 552
5 8.3 46 382
6 1.5 46 69
7 2.7 46 124
8 3 33 99
Other Sites 115
Main Street* 10.5 - 115
Total Housing Element Update Sites 1,606
*The proposed commercial area and total dwelling units for the Mission Street Program was developed by assuming 70% of the buildout described in the original Housing Element Update Total Residential Units
(DU)
Residential Duty Factor
(GPD/DU)
Water Demand
(GPD) (AFY)
Served by City 1,054 225 237,150 266
Served by GSWC 552 225 124,200 139
Total 1,606 225 361,350 405
IJ

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Water Supply Assessment
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 28

2.2.1 Construction Water Demand
Project construction will require water for dust control and other general construction activities. During construction, water is assumed to be provided from existing fire hydrants adjacent to the project sites following the City’s and GSWC’s procedures. It is assumed grading will take place to move around soil for the redevelopment of the sites. However, there is no estimate for the earthwork at each site and therefore construction water could not be estimated at this time and is not accounted for in this WSA.

3.0 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT

3.1 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with CWC Section 10910 (d), Section 3 of this WSA identifies the sources of potable water that are available to the Project. The purpose of this section is to evaluate if the water supplies during normal, dry, and multiple-dry water years over a twenty-year period (2025-2045) are adequate to meet the projected demands established in both of the 2020 UWMPs.

Because groundwater is a source of supply for the City of Seal Beach and GSWC (and in turn for the proposed Project), SB610 requires specific groundwater information to be included in the WSA. In accordance with CWC Section 10910 (f), this section will also provide a detailed description of the local groundwater basin.

3.1.1 Law: Water Code Section 10910(d)
1): The assessment required by this section shall include an identification of any existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project, and a description of the quantities of water received in prior years by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts. (2) An identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts held by the public water system, or the city or county, if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), shall be demonstrated by providing information related to all of the following:
(A) Written contracts or other proof of entitlement to an identified water supply. (B) Copies of a capital outlay program for financing the delivery of a water supply that has been adopted by the public water system.
(C) Federal, state, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure associated with delivering the water supply.
(D) Any necessary regulatory approvals that are required in order to be able to convey or deliver the water supply.

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Water Supply Assessment
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 29

3.1.2 Law: Water Code Section 10910(f)
If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the following additional information shall be included in the water supply assessment:
(1) A review of any information contained in the urban water management plan relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project.
(2) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied.

For those basins for which a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For basins that have not been adjudicated, information as to whether the department has identified the basin or basins as over drafted or has projected that the basin will become over drafted if present management conditions continue, in the most current bulletin of the department that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description by the public water system or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), of the efforts being undertaken in the basin or basins to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition.
(3) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), for the past five years from any groundwater basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records.
(4) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), from any basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records.
(5) An analysis of the sufficiency of the groundwater from the basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project. A water supply assessment shall not be required to include the information required by this paragraph if the public water system determines, as part of the review required by paragraph (1), that the sufficiency of groundwater necessary to meet the initial and projected water demand associated with the project was addressed in the description and analysis required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 10631.

3.2 DEMAND REDUCTION
The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (also known as Senate Bill X7-7 or SB X7-7) was a California state law that required the state to reduce urban water consumption by 20% by the year 2020.

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Water Supply Assessment
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 30 According to the City’s 2020 UWMP, the City complied with the SB X7-7 Compliance Option 3 requirements by achieving 95% of the applicable state hydrologic region target as set forth in the State’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. In addition, the City was able to achieve at least a 5% decrease in water usage compared to the average of the previous five years. The City’s actual 2020 GPCD was 95 which is below the 2020 target of 142 GPCD which complies with SB X7-7.

The City and GSWC are members of the Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance, which was formed by MWDOC and consists of 29 retail agencies. The City benefits from MWDOC’s assistance in calculating baseline water use and water use targets.

GSWC West Orange Service Area compliance target was established as 141 GPCD per the selected SB X7-7 Compliance Option 3. In 2020, GSWC was able to meet the compliance requirements by achieving 111 GPCD which equates to a 21% reduction from the compliance target.

3.3 WATER PROJECTED SUPPLY
As mentioned previously in Section 1.5, the City and GSWC obtains their water supply from a combination of imported water and groundwater from the OC Basin. According to the UWMPs, it is projected that by 2045, the City’s and GSWC’s water supply portfolios will compose of 85% groundwater and 15% imported water (Table 3-1).

Table 3-1: City’s Projected Water Supply Portfolio6
Source Potable Water Supply (AF)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Groundwater OC Basin 2,699 2,862 2,841 2,820 2,810
Imported Water MWDOC 476 505 501 498 496
Total Water Supply 3,175 3,367 3,342 3,318 3,306
Per GSWC 2020 UWMP, it is assumed that supply will meet demand and GSWC will only acquire water supply to meet the specific demands of any given year. The following table shows the supply that is available to GSWC West Orange Service Area regardless of demand.

Table 3-2: GSWC Projected Available Water Supply Portfolio7 Source Potable Water Supply (AF)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Groundwater OC Basin 19,800 20,210 20,630 21,602 21,505 Imported Water MWDOC 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100
Imported Water City of Seal Beach 40 40 40 40 40
6 2020 UWMP, City of Seal Beach, June 2021, Table 6-2
7 2020 UWMP, GSWC West Orange Service Area, July 2021, Table 3-3, 3-6, 3-9, 3-15 IJ

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Water Supply Assessment
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 31 Total Water Supply 21,940 22,350 22,770 23,202 23,645

3.3.1 Imported Water
The City of Seal Beach and GSWC West Orange Service Area purchase water from MWDOC. MWDOC is a MET member agency and MET’s supply projections consider the imported demands from Orange County, including demands from the City of Seal Beach. Per MWDOC’s 2020 UWMP, approximately 427,000 AF of imported water was used by MWDOC’s customers with 143,000 AF being used for retail water sales including the City of Seal Beach. MWDOC’s expects the average retail water sales to be approximately 126,000 AFY out to 2045. The water from MET includes water from the Colorado River and the State Water Project (SWP) as Table A water, managed by MET. Both water supplies are treated at the Robert B. Diemer Filtration Plant located in Yorba Linda, CA and delivered to MWDOC and multiple other agencies throughout Southern California.

Per the 2020 UWMP for MET, the Colorado River supply faces current and future imbalances between water supply and demand conditions due to long term drought and climate change. MET has helped fund and implement various programs to improve the Colorado River supply reliability including developing future transfer programs and recycling water in the Colorado River Basin.

Similarly, the SWP faces many challenges concerning its long-term sustainability due to climate change.

As of 2020, water deliveries are approximately 60% of the maximum Table A contract entitlements (DWR, 2020b). Per the UWMP, water exports since 2005 have seen a decreasing trend due to regulatory restrictions among others. It should be noted that there are multiple factors that can affect the ability to estimate existing and future water delivery reliability.

Water storage plays a significant role in MET’s resource management strategy. MET’s capability to meet projected demands, without implementing its Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP), is dependent on its storage resources. In recent years, groundwater basins and local reservoirs have dropped to low operating levels and remain below optimal storage levels due to long term drought conditions. (MET, 2021). To increase the reliability of water supplies MET continues to invest in flexible storage, transfer programs including groundwater storage, recycling water, water conservation, and pursuing long-term solutions for the ecosystem, regulatory and water supply issues related to the SWP (MET, 2021). MET’s water reliability assessments are used to determine that demands within MWDOC can be met during normal and drought conditions.

3.3.1.1 City of Seal Beach
The City’s imported water supplies are delivered via a connection (OC-35) to MWDOC, which delivers water from MET. The maximum capacity for the OC-35 connection to the City is 9.9 cubic feet per second (cfs). Outside of flushing the system, a flow rate higher than 6 cfs is seldom needed. The only occasions where the flow would be close to the maximum capacity of 9.9 cfs is if there is a large water main break or a fire flow demand. As there is no allocation contract known at this time, the City can theoretically purchase up to 7,170 AFY to meet its demands, though this may be unlikely as water purchased through IJ

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Water Supply Assessment
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 32 MWDOC is estimated during the prior year based on estimated demands and considering the supply by groundwater sources for that year. In FY 2019-20, the City relied on approximately 1,132-acre feet per year (AFY) of imported water, 35% of the City’s total water supply, to meet its demands and projected demand in the UWMP showed a nominal increase through 2045.

3.3.1.2 GSWC West Orange Service Area
According to GSWC’s 2020 UWMP, GSWC also purchases MET water from MWDOC and manages the allocations of the supplies among the Placentia-Yorba Linda and the West Orange Service Areas to meet both service areas needs and reduce costs for their customers. The West Orange Service Area purchased an average of 713 AF over 2016 to 2020, with 2019 and 2020 purchases being less than 75 AF. GSWC also purchases a small amount of potable water from the City of Seal Beach through its existing connection to the City. In 2020, GSWC purchased 34 AF from the City of Seal Beach.

3.3.2 Groundwater Analysis
The Orange County Groundwater Basin (OC Basin) is managed by Orange County Water District (OCWD) and covers an area of approximately 350 square miles and the boundary extends to the Orange County-Los Angeles Line northwest. There are three major aquifer systems hydraulically connected, the Shallow Aquifer, the Principal Aquifer, and the Deep Aquifer. Groundwater can flow between each system through intervening aquitards. Over 90% of groundwater production is pumped from wells connected within the Principal Aquifer system occurring at depths between 200 and 1,300 ft below ground surface.

In 2014, the State of California adopted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) to support and manage its groundwater sustainably and mitigate significant low groundwater levels, land subsidence, and water quality issues. SGMA requires all high- and medium-priority basins, as designated by DWR, to be sustainably managed. DWR designated the non-adjudicated Coastal Plain of OC Basin (“Basin 8-1” or “Basin”) as a medium-priority basin, primarily due to heavy reliance on the Basin’s groundwater as a source of water supply. To comply with the SGMA, the agencies within Basin 8-1, led by OCWD submitted an Alternative to a Ground Water Sustainability Agency (GSP) in 2017, titled the “Basin 8-1 Alternative”. This alternative will be updated every five years.

According to the Basin 8-1 Alternative, OCWD monitors the basin by collecting groundwater elevation and quality data from over 2000 wells and facilities. This includes managing an electronic database that stores water elevation, water quality, and production data. As part of their 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. It is estimated that the basin has a total capacity of 66 million AF with an operating range of 500,000 AF below full condition. The operating range is established as the level of groundwater storage within the aquifer that can be maintained without causing adverse impact to the basin. The groundwater basin is not operated on an annual safe-yield basis but over a period of several years. The net change in the groundwater storage in any given year may be positive or negative depending on multiple factors and the basin level is maintained in an approximate balance. The OC groundwater basin is recharged through various means including natural water ways, such as the Santa Ana River and various creeks, recycled water from Los Angeles County IJ

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Water Supply Assessment
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 33 Department of Public Works (LADWP), imported water from MET, and the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS). As part of the GWRS, through partnership with Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), OCWD manages a water recycling plant that provides up to 100 million gallons per day of advanced tertiary treated wastewater to supply recharge water and a seawater intrusion barrier within the OC BASIN.

There are nineteen major groundwater producers that pump from the OC Basin. This includes the City of Seal Beach and GSWC West Orange. The groundwater producers meet on a monthly basis with OCWD to consult with and provide advice on basin management issues and meet bi-annually to establish a Replenishment Assessment (RA). The RA is based on demands estimated from the previous year and the amount of groundwater that has been pump during the year. Demands from groundwater producers in the past, specifically 1996-1997, have been as high as 515,000 AFY, but have generally decreased to approximately 364,000 AF in 2015-2016. This general decrease is expected to continue due to conservation efforts and implementation of water efficient fixtures. Per the 2020 UWMP, pumping in 2019-2020 was 286,550 AF due to wells being turned off from PFAS impacts. OCWD expects total groundwater production within the OC Basin to average 320,000 AFY moving forward.

The OC Basin is not adjudicated; therefore, management includes financial incentives to encourage sustainable pumping for groundwater producers. OCWD does not directly limit pumping from the OC Basin but assesses the basin annually and sets a Basin Production Percentage (BPP) 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. OCWD establishes the BPP uniformly for all producers, which is defined as the percentage of the groundwater producer’s total water supply that comes from groundwater. Groundwater producers meet bi-annually with OCWD to establish a RA based on demands estimated from the previous year and the amount of groundwater that has been pump during the year. While there is no legal limit as to how much a groundwater producer pumps from this basin, agencies that pump above the established BPP are charged a RA fee plus a Basin Equity Assessment (BEA) fee. OCWD forecasts that the basin will be able to sustain a BPP of 85% 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 WSA, the BPP is assumed to be held at 85% through 2045.

Another tool that OCWD uses to sustainably manage the OC Basin is the Basin Production Limitation through Section 31.5(g)(7) of the OCWD Act. This act allows OCWD to set limitations on groundwater production and induce surcharges if the limits are exceeded. This management tool can be used when necessary to shift pumping from one area of the basin to another. A specific example of this is the Coastal Pumping Transfer Program, which shifts pumping from the coastal areas to inland areas to minimize seawater intrusion as necessary.

Per the City’s 2020 UWMP, the groundwater volume pumped in 2016-2020 by the City is relatively stable with the highest volume, 2,400 AF, pumped in 2019. In FY2019-20, the City pumped approximately 2,141 AF of groundwater.

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Water Supply Assessment
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 34 Per GSWC West Orange’s 2020 UWMP, GSWC pump 17,686 AF to allocate between its Placentia-Yorba Linda, West Orange, and Cowan Heights Service Areas.

3.3.3 Emergency Connections
As discussed in Section 1.5.1.3, the City has emergency interconnections with the Cities of Westminster, Long Beach, and Huntington Beach as well as Golden State Water Company that can be used to supplement water supply in special cases.

GSWC West Orange has emergency interconnections between the City of Garden Grove, City of Buena Park, GSWC Artesia Service Area, and the City of Seal Beach as mentioned.

This water will not be included in this WSA’s analysis of water supply as it is beyond normal operations of each of the water systems.

3.4 WATER SUPPLY DURING NORMAL, SINGLE DRY-YEAR, AND

MULTIPLE DRY-YEARS
Per the City’s and GSWC West Orange’s 2020 UWMPs, their Drought Risk Assessment (DRA) states that the water supplies available to each retail water supplier will meet projected water demand for normal, single-dry year, and consecutive dry years. The City and GSWC have the ability to purchase water as needed to meet the increasing demands during these periods as discussed further below.

3.4.1 Normal Water Year
The prediction model developed for the Demand Forecast TM described in the City’s 2020 UWMP projects the 25-year water demand for the Orange County water agencies. Through this statistical model, current and future climate conditions (such as temperature, precipitation, drought, and conservation measures) are analyzed to show impacts on water demand. The model predicts the water supply availability and demand of a normal water year by using average demand conditions from FY2017-18 and FY2018-2019. The model showed that there is an adequate supply to meet demands through 2045 for the City.

Table 3-2 summarizes the model projections below.

Table 3-3: City Water Supply Availability & Demand Projections Normal Water Year8 Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Population
Water Service Area Population 24,110 24,527 24,652 24,554 24,357 Calculated Consumption Rate (GPCD) 118 123 121 121 121
8 2020 UWMP, City of Seal Beach, June 2021, Table 7-2
IJ

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Water Supply Assessment
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 35 Supply
Total Available Supply (AF) 3,175 3,368 3,342 3,317 3,306 Demand
Total Estimated Demand (AF) 3,175 3,368 3,342 3,317 3,306 Supply/Demand Comparison
Supply vs. Demand Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Per GSWC’s 2020 UWMP, the West Orange Service Area will be able to meet the demand projections out to 2045 based on the supply available to GSWC. Though GSWC anticipates an available supply beyond what is required, GSWC will only acquire a water supply to meet the specific demands of any given year. The following table shows the supply that is required to GSWC West Orange Service Area to meet demand.

Table 3-4: GSWC Water Supply Availability & Demand Projections Normal Water Year9 Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Population
Water Service Area Population 114,750 115,267 115,787 116,308 116,833 Calculated Consumption Rate (GPCD) 110 113 115 118 120
Total Available Supply (AF) 14,137 14,527 14,926 15,337 15,759 Total Estimated Demand (AF) 14,137 14,527 14,926 15,337 15,759 Supply/Demand Comparison
Supply vs. Demand Difference 0 0 0 0 0

3.4.2 Single Dry Water Year
Per the 2020 UWMP, the City defines the single dry year condition as a single year of minimum to no rainfall within a period where average precipitation is expected based on demands from FY2013-14. The forecasting model reflects the impacts of hot/dry weather conditions using a 6% increase in water demand from the normal year condition in City’s service area. The model concludes that there is an adequate supply to meet growing demand conditions, for the FY2013-14 single dry year, out to 2045.

Table 3-5 summarizes the model projections for a single-dry year below. 9 2020 UWMP, GSWC West Orange Service Area, July 2021, Table 5-2

I I I I I

I I I I I
IJ

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Water Supply Assessment
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 36 Table 3-5: City Water Supply Availability & Demand Projections Single Dry Year10 Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Population
Water Service Area Population 24,110 24,527 24,652 24,554 24,357 Calculated Consumption Rate (GPCD) 118 123 121 121 121
Supply
Total Available Supply (AF) 3,366 3,570 3,543 3,516 3,504 Demand
Total Estimated Demand (AF) 3,366 3,570 3,543 3,516 3,504 Supply/Demand Comparison
Supply vs. Demand Difference 0 0 0 0 0
The expected water uses during a single-dry year for GWSC’s West Orange Service Area were estimated based on analyzing plausible hydrological variability, regulatory variability, climate conditions, and other factors that impact the water supply to GSWC West Orange and its customers’ water uses. The drought effect assumes a 10% increase in demand in the West Orange Service Area. Though GSWC anticipates an available supply beyond what is required, GSWC will only acquire a water supply to meet the specific demands of any given year.

Table 3-6 summarizes the projections for a single-dry year below.

Table 3-6: GSWC Water Supply Availability & Demand Projections Single Dry Year11 Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Population
Water Service Area Population 114,750 115,267 115,787 116,308 116,833 Calculated Consumption Rate (GPCD) 121 124 127 129 132
Total Available Supply (AF) 15,551 15,979 16,419 16,871 17,335 Total Estimated Demand (AF) 15,551 15,979 16,419 16,871 17,335 Supply/Demand Comparison
Supply vs. Demand Difference 0 0 0 0 0
10 2020 UWMP, City of Seal Beach, June 2021, Table 7-3
11 2020 UWMP, GSWC West Orange Service Area, July 2021, Table 5-2 IJ

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Water Supply Assessment
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 37

3.4.3 Multiple Consecutive Dry Water Years
Multiple dry water years, as defined in the UWMPs, is five or more consecutive dry years with below average precipitation and/or one that requires a reduction of water service to customers.

For the City, the multiple dry years assumed that there is five consecutive dry years resulting in a 6% increase over normal demands above average supply for the consecutive 5-year period of 2012 to 2016.

The model concludes that there is adequate supply to meet growing demand conditions for a multiple-dry year scenario out to 2045.

Table 3-7 summarizes the model projections for multiple-dry years below.

Table 3-7: City Water Supply Availability & Demand Projections Multiple Dry Years (2025- 2045)12
Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Population
Water Service Area Population 24,110 24,527 24,652 24,554 24,357 Calculated Consumption Rate (GPCD) 118 123 121 121 121
First Year
Total Available Supply (AF) 3,448 3,407 3,564 3,538 3,514 Total Estimated Demand (AF) 3,448 3,407 3,564 3,538 3,514 Available Leftover Supply Capacity 0 0 0 0 0
Second Year
Total Available Supply (AF) 3,428 3,447 3,559 3,532 3,511 Total Estimated Demand (AF) 3,428 3,447 3,559 3,532 3,511 Available Leftover Supply Capacity 0 0 0 0 0
Third Year
Total Available Supply (AF) 3,407 3,488 3,554 3,527 3,509 Total Estimated Demand (AF) 3,407 3,488 3,554 3,527 3,509 Available Leftover Supply Capacity 0 0 0 0 0
Fourth Year
Total Available Supply (AF) 3,386 3,529 3,548 3,521 3,507 Total Estimated Demand (AF) 3,386 3,529 3,548 3,521 3,507 Available Leftover Supply Capacity 0 0 0 0 0
Fifth Year
Total Available Supply (AF) 3,366 3,570 3,543 3,516 3,504 Total Estimated Demand (AF) 3,366 3,570 3,543 3,516 3,504 12 2020 UWMP, City of Seal Beach, June 2021, Table 7.4
IJ

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Water Supply Assessment
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 38 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison
Available Leftover Supply Capacity 0 0 0 0 0
Per Section 8 of the 2020 UWMP, the City water shortage contingency planning efforts involve a comprehensive supply shortage response that includes demand reduction measures and supply augmentation actions. The City and its wholesale supplier, MWDOC, will periodically revisit its representation of the supply sources and of the gross water use estimations as well as revise the Drought Risk Assessment as needed.

For the GSWC West Orange Service area, the multiple dry years assumed that there is five consecutive dry years resulting in a10% increase over normal demands. The analysis within GSWC’s 2020 UWMP concludes that there is adequate supply to meet growing demand conditions for a multiple-dry year scenario out to 2045.

Table 3-8 summarizes the model projections for multiple-dry years below.

Table 3-8: GSWC Water Supply Availability & Demand Projections Multiple Dry Years (2025-2045)13
Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Population
Water Service Area Population 114750 115267 115787 116308 116833 Calculated Consumption Rate (GPCD) 124 126 129 132 132
First Year
Total Available Supply (AF) 15,551 15,979 16,419 16,871 17,335 Total Estimated Demand (AF) 15,551 15,979 16,419 16,871 17,335 Available Leftover Supply Capacity 0 0 0 0 0
Second Year
Total Available Supply (AF) 15,636 16,066 16,509 16,963 17,335 Total Estimated Demand (AF) 15,636 16,066 16,509 16,963 17,335 Available Leftover Supply Capacity 0 0 0 0 0
Third Year
Total Available Supply (AF) 15,721 16,154 16,598 17,055 17,335 Total Estimated Demand (AF) 15,721 16,154 16,598 17,055 17,335 Available Leftover Supply Capacity 0 0 0 0 0
Fourth Year
Total Available Supply (AF) 15,807 16,242 16,689 17,148 17,335 13 2020 UWMP, GSWC West Orange Service Area, July 2021, Table 5-3 IJ

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Water Supply Assessment
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 39 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison
Total Estimated Demand (AF) 15,807 16,242 16,689 17,148 17,335 Available Leftover Supply Capacity 0 0 0 0 0
Fifth Year
Total Available Supply (AF) 15,893 16,330 16,780 17,242 17,335 Total Estimated Demand (AF) 15,893 16,330 16,780 17,242 17,335 Available Leftover Supply Capacity 0 0 0 0 0
GSWC’s analysis demonstrates that it has reliable supplies to meet its customer demands in normal, single dry years, and five consecutive dry year conditions through 2045. Groundwater and imported water from MWDOC are resilient during dry conditions and can reliably meet the West Orange Service Area demand.

3.5 WATER SUPPLY AND ADDITIONAL DEMAND COMPARISON
According to the 2020 UWMPs for both the City and GSWC West Orange Service Area, the projected supply during any normal, single dry, or multiple consecutive dry water years out to 2045 will be adequate to meet the demands. However, these projections do not account for the demands associated with the Project.

As previously discussed in Section 2.2, at full build-out, the total Project is estimated to require 405 AFY above the projected demands established in the 2020 UWMPs. Given that this WSA assumes the Project will be fully built-out with new appliances in 2029, future improvements in fixture efficiency have not been factored into the demand estimates. As a result, this WSA assumes the Project’s demand of 405 AFY will remain constant from 2029 through 2045. This is unlike the UWMPs, which assumes residential water use may decrease over time due to continued improvements in water-use efficiency.

This WSA evaluates the percentage increase in the City’s and GSWC West Orange’s total water demand over a 25-year period due to the Project, comparing the impact during a normal year and during the largest demands from the five-year period of multiple dry years as a worst-case scenario.

Based on the estimated additional water required for the City’s portion of the Project, an approximate 8% increase in supply is required to meet these demands. Based on the estimated additional water required for GSWC’s portion of the Project (Site 4 – The Shops at Rossmoor), an approximate 1% increase in supply to GSWC is required to meet these demands. See Table 3-9 and Table 3-10 for a summary of supply versus demand normal years for both the City and GSWC.

𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐷𝐷 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝑤𝑤 ℎ 𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐷𝐷 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 − 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐷𝐷 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 2020 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐷𝐷 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 2020 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 ∗ 100%

3,634 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 − 3,368 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
3,368 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ∗ 100% = 8%
IJ

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Water Supply Assessment
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 40 Table 3-9: City’s Normal Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison Water Sources 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Projected Supply 2020 UWMP (AF) 3,175 3,368 3,342 3,317 3,306 Projected Demand 2020 UWMP
(AF)
3,175 3,368 3,342 3,317 3,306
Project Demand (AF) minus Site 4 0 266 266 266 266
Projected Demand 2020 UWMP +
Project Demand (AF)
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

𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐷𝐷 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝑤𝑤 ℎ 𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐷𝐷 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 − 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐷𝐷 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 2020 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐷𝐷 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 2020 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 ∗ 100%

15,898 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 − 15,759 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
15,759 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 ∗ 100% = 1%
Table 3-10: GSWC’s Normal Year + Additional Project Demand and Supply Comparison Water Sources 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Projected Supply 2020 UWMP (AF) 14,137 14,527 14,926 15,337 15,759 Projected Demand 2020 UWMP
(AF) 14,137 14,527 14,926 15,337 15,759
Site-4 Project Demand (AF) 0 139 139 139 139
Projected Demand 2020 UWMP +
Project Demand (AF) 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
In accordance with the City’s 2020 UWMP, this WSA assumes a 6% increase in water supply is required during dry years compared to normal years for the City’s portion of the Project. Therefore, with the 6% increase applied to the City’s portion of the Project demand of 266 AF, the total Project supply of 282 AF would be required during multiple dry years.

Table 3-11: 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
Project Demand (AF) 0 282 282 282 282
IJ

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Water Supply Assessment
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 41 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Projected Demand 2020 UWMP +
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
Like GSWC’s 2020 UWMP, this WSA assumes a 10% increase in water supply is required during dry years compared to normal years for GSWC’s portion of the Project. Therefore, with the 10% increase applied to GSWC’s portion of the Project demand of 139 AF, the total Project supply of 153 AF would be required during multiple dry years.

Table 3-12: 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
Project Demand (AF) 0 153 153 153 153
Projected Demand 2020 UWMP +
Project Demand (AF) 15,893 16,483 16,933 17,395 17,488
Demand Increase 0% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Additional Supply Required 0 153 153 153 153
As mentioned previously, the BPP is established based on estimated demands within the basin and is subject to change on an annual basis. The BPP for groundwater production in this WSA is set at 85% based on the assumptions stated in the 2020 UWMPs. Based on this assumption, the City and GSWC will need to purchase 15% of its water supply over the next 25 years to meet demand.

Based on the BPP of 85% For the City, a 6% increase in the City’s portion of the Project demands or 282 AF would require ground water pumping of 240 AF and purchasing of 42 AF from imported sources. This represents approximately a 0.07% increase of groundwater production over the estimated average within the OC Basin and a 0.04% increase over the estimated average water purchased for retail sales. See Table 3-7 for a summary of the City’s projected water supply portfolio with the increased demand from the Project, assuming the City’s BPP remains at 85%.

Table 3-13 City’s Supply Source Comparison - 85% BPP
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Projected Demand 2020 UWMP + Project
Demand (AF) 3,175 3,634 3,608 3,583 3,572
Groundwater Supply with 85% BPP (AF) 2,699 3,089 3,067 3,046 3,036 Purchased or Imported Water Supply (AF) 476 545 541 537 536 IJ

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Conclusion
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 42 Additional Supply Required 0 0 0 0 0
Note: BPP is defined as the ratio of the City’s groundwater supplies to total potable water supplies.

For the West Orange Service Area of GSWC, a 10% increase in Site 4 – The Shops at Rossmoor, or 153 AF during multiple dry years, would require ground water pumping of 130 AF and purchasing of 23 AF from imported sources. This represents approximately a 0.03% increase of groundwater production over the estimated average within the OC Basin and a 0.02% increase over the estimated average water purchased for retail sales. It should be noted that GSWC anticipates an apple supply available compared to the demand projections. In 2045, 153 AF represents a 0.7% of the 23,605 AF that is expected to be available to GSWC West Orange’s portfolio.

See Table 3-7 for a summary of the City’s projected water supply portfolio with the increased demand from the Project, assuming the City’s BPP remains at 85%.

Table 3-14 GSWC’s Supply Source Comparison - 85% BPP
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Projected Demand 2020 UWMP + Project
Demand (AF) 14,137 14,666 15,065 15,476 15,898
Groundwater Supply with 85% BPP (AF) 12,016 12,466 12,805 13,155 13,513 Purchased or Imported Water Supply (AF) 2,121 2,200 2,260 2,321 2,385 Additional Supply Required 0 0 0 0 0
Note: BPP is defined as the ratio of the City’s groundwater supplies to total potable water supplies.

The total demand from the Project during normal years, 405 AFY, represent approximately a 0.1% increase in groundwater production over the estimated average within the OC Basin and a 0.05% increase over the estimated average water purchased for retail sales. Based on this and resiliency of the supply sources, OC Basin and MWDOC, the demands associated with the project can reliably be met.

To meet the full additional Project demand without increasing the amount of imported water beyond the annual volume described in the UWMP’s projection (see Table 3-1), each retail water supplier may have to increase their groundwater production or obtain additional sources of water. However, pumping beyond the established BPP may result in incurred costs associated with RA and BEA.

4.0 CONCLUSION
The purpose of this WSA is to analyze whether the City’s total projected water supplies established in the 2020 UWMP during normal, single dry, and multiple consecutive dry water years are adequate to meet the projected water demands from the 2020 UWMP in addition to the water demand associated with the Project.

The Project is assumed to be fully built-out by 2029. The calculated demand for the Project (eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program) is 405 AFY during a normal year and 429 AFY l l l I I
IJ

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Conclusion
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 43 during a five-year dry period and has been added to the projected demands through 2045. 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 METs reliability and the sustainable management of the OC Basin by OCWD, this WSA expects that the additional demand from the Project along with the projected demands from the UWMPs can be met with a BPP of 85% and 15% imported water.

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
References
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 44

5.0 REFERENCES
City of Seal Beach. June 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at:
https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Public%20Works/Seal%20Beach%202020%20 UWMP%20FINAL%20DRAFT%2006102021.pdf?ver=2021-06-10-151133-793. Accessed January 12, 2024
City of Seal Beach. March 2012. Water Master Plan Update. Executive Summary Available at:
https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Water%20Master%20Plan%20Update%20July %202012.pdf. Accessed January 12, 2024
City of Seal Beach. June 2021. 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Available at:
https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Public%20Works/Seal%20Beach%202020%20 WSCP%20FINAL%20DRAFT-2021.06.08.pdf?ver=2021-06-10-074625-340. Accessed January 12, 2024
Golden State Water Company West Orange Service Area. July 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at:
https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fuwmp_attachments%2F1441205680%2F GSWC-West%20Orange%202020%20UWMP%20Final.pdf
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. June 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.

Available at:
https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fuwmp_attachments%2F5202375113%2F MWDSC%202020%20Urban%20Water%20Management%20Plan%20-
%20June%202021%20WUE%20Portal.pdf
Municipal Water District of Orange County. April 1, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at https://www.mwdoc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/1.Draft-2020-Urban-Water-ManagementPlan.pdf IJ

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Appendix A city of Seal Beach and GSWC west orange service area 2020 Urban Water Management Plans Link
April 12, 2024
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 45

APPENDICES
IJ

MANAGEMENT PLANS LINK
The City of Seal Beach’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan can be found here:
https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Public%20Works/Seal%20Beach%202020%20UWM P%20FINAL%20DRAFT%2006102021.pdf?ver=2021-06-10-151133-793 Golden State Water Company West Orange Service Area. July 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at:
https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fuwmp_attachments%2F1441205680%2FGSW C-West%20Orange%202020%20UWMP%20Final.pdf
IJ

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
Appendix B Seal Beach 2012 Water Master Plan Update Link April 12, 2024
zj u:\2042665000\report\water supply assessment-sealbeach_v9_clean.docx 47 Appendix B SEAL BEACH 2012 WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE
LINK
The City of Seal Beach’s 2012 Water Master Plan Update can be found here:
https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Water%20Master%20Plan%20Update%20July%2020

12.pdf
IJ

Page 1 of 55 ends

Program EIR for City of Seal
Beach Housing Element and Zoning
Code Updates Project
Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding
Considerations pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.)
I.Introduction
On behalf of the City of Seal Beach (City), and pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines), the City’s Community Development Department caused preparation of a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project). The City is the lead agency for the EIR.

To support its certification of the EIR and approval of the Project, the City Council of the City of Seal Beach makes the following findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations (collectively, the “Findings”). These Findings contain the City Council’s written analysis and conclusions regarding the Project’s environmental effects, mitigation measures, alternatives to the proposed Project, and the overriding considerations which, in the City Council’s view, justify the approval of the proposed Project despite its potential environmental effects. These Findings are based upon the entire record of proceedings for the EIR, as described below.

II. Background
The Project evaluated in the EIR involves implementation of the Housing Element Update and Zoning Code Update which include establishment of the new zoning designation and rezoning of sites and amendments to the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements.

The Housing Element, which integrates/updates supporting socioeconomic, demographic, and household data, is specifically intended to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation of 1,243 new dwelling units. The RHNA allocates regional housing needs by income-level among member jurisdictions. This Program EIR evaluates the potentially significant, adverse, and beneficial environmental impacts resulting from the Project, which involves implementation of the Housing Element Update and Zoning Code Update, including establishment of the new zoning designation and rezoning of sites and amendments to the MSSP resulting from Project implementation which would result in increased densification of residential uses.

The site inventory included in the City’s Housing Element Update shows how the City will meet its RHNA requirement through housing opportunity sites, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and pipeline projects.

The Housing Opportunity Sites include a total of eight sites that have been identified by the City as having the potential for providing additional housing to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. The sites are broken

Page 2 of 55 ends

into two categories: (1) underutilized sites that do not require Zoning Code changes and (b) sites where zoning modifications are proposed. Beyond the site inventory, the City has also identified the Main Street Program as part of the Zoning Code Update to implement it’s the Housing Element Update. The Main Street Program does not identify specific housing opportunity sites but would modify the existing Main Street Specific Plan to allow for residential units to be developed on the second floor of properties located within the Main Street Specific Plan area.

The Housing Element Update identified the Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project as a pipeline project towards meeting the City’s RHNA requirement. The Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project is a proposed 155-acre Specific Plan on the existing Old Ranch Country Club and would convert a portion of the existing golf course to a mixed-use development with 167 residential units. The 167 residential units of Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project (herein referred to as the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project) are programmatically evaluated within this EIR as these 167 residential units are included within the City’s site inventory to meet its RHNA requirements. The other portions of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are not included within RHNA requirements and therefore are not included within this analysis. As such, specific impact findings associated with the development of the Old Ranch Country Club Pipeline Project are being evaluated separately by the City in a standalone project EIR. This Program EIR is not rezoning or entitling the ORCC Specific Plan Project. Rather, this EIR evaluates the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project as a basis for implications associated with housing production associated with the ORCC Specific Plan Project, only.

III. Project Overview and Environmental Review
Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall focus an EIR discussion on potentially significant environmental effects and may limit discussion on other effects to brief explanations about why they are not significant (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21002.1, CEQA Guidelines Section 15128).

A determination of which impacts would be potentially significant was made for this Project based on review of the information presented in the Initial Study prepared for the Project and comments received as part of the public scoping process, as well as additional research and analysis of relevant project data obtained during preparation of the Draft EIR (DEIR). The DEIR addressed the potential environmental effects of the Project. The City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a DEIR for the Project beginning on November 16, 2023. The NOP was distributed for a 30-day comment period that ended on December 15, 2023. The Public Scoping Meeting on the DEIR for the Project was held on December 6, 2023. The comments received on the NOP and during the Public Scoping Meeting were considered in the preparation of the DEIR. The scope of the DEIR included the potential impacts identified in the NOP and issues raised by agencies and the public in response to the NOP.

The City of Seal Beach filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation to begin the public review period for the DEIR (PRC, Section 21161). Concurrent with the NOC, the DEIR has been distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well as to all parties requesting a copy of the DEIR in accordance with PRC Section 21092(b)(3). The DEIR was published by the City and available for review for a 45-day public review period that began on May 9, 2025 and ended on June 23, 2025. The DEIR, including the technical appendices, are available for review online on the City’s website at:
https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Departments/Community-Development/PlanningDevelopment/Environmental-Documents-Under-Review.

During the public review period, the interested public and responsible and trustee agencies were invited to

Page 4 of 55 ends

submit comments on the DEIR to the City’s Community Development Department. The City’s Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) also held a public meeting on the DEIR on June 5, 2025, at which time the EQCB received oral comments and also provided comments to City staff on the DEIR.

Following the completion of the public review period, the City reviewed all comments received on the DEIR and prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). On September 17, 2025 the EQCB conducted an additional public meeting at which time additional public comments were received on the proposed FEIR, and Board members also provided additional comments. The FEIR, which incorporates by reference the DEIR, includes all comments received during the public review period, responses to those comments, and additional comments received during 2025 at the EQCB, Planning Commission, and City Council, also describes any changes to the DEIR that resulted from the comments received. All persons who commented on the DEIR have been notified of the availability of the FEIR and the dates of the public hearings on the Project before the Planning Commission and City Council, and all responses to comments submitted on the DEIR by public agencies have been provided to those agencies at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing.

Section 21081.6 of CEQA requires lead agencies to adopt a mitigation monitoring or reporting program (MMRP) for any project for which it has made mitigation findings pursuant to Section 21081. The City has prepared an MMRP for the Project, which has been made available to the public with the FEIR.

The EIR which is the subject of these Findings and presented for City Council certification consists of the DEIR, the FEIR, and the MMRP.

The City and responsible agency approvals necessary for implementation of the Project are:

Jurisdiction Permits/Approval
City of Seal Beach Certification of CEQA document
Certification of FEIR
Adoption of MMRP
Adoption of Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Housing Element Update
Seal Beach Municipal Code, Zoning Code Amendment
Seal Beach Municipal Code, Zoning Map Amendment (Change of Zone)
Main Street Specific Plan Amendment
The EIR was prepared to meet all applicable CEQA requirements necessary to support these actions by the City Council and the responsible agencies.

Page 3 of 55 ends

Page 4 of 55 ends

IV. City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code and Main Street Specific Plan Updates Amendments (Project) and Environmental Review A. Record of Proceedings and Custodian of Record
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the record of proceedings consists of the following documents and testimony, at a minimum:
• The EIR, which consists of the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2023110425), dated May 9, 2025 and published and circulated for public review and comment by the City from May 9, 2025 through June 23, 20253 (the DEIR), and the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project Final Environmental Impact Report, published and made available for public review on September 5, 2025 (the FEIR), and all appendices, reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps, testimony, and other materials related thereto; • All public notices issued by the City in connection with the Project and the preparation of the DEIR and the FEIR, including but not limited to public notices for all public workshops and scoping sessions held to seek public comments and input on the Project; • All written and oral communications submitted by agencies or interested members of the general public during and immediately after the public review periods for the DEIR and FEIR, including oral communications made at public hearings or meetings held for the Project before the Environmental Quality Control Board, the Planning Commission, and the City Council; • All minutes, testimony, statements, comments and other materials memorializing, describing or relating to workshops, meetings, scoping sessions, and hearings conducted by the City Council, the City’s Planning Commission, the City’s Environmental Quality Control Board, and all other departments of the City relating to the City’s review and consideration of the Project; • All other public reports, studies, documents, memoranda, maps, or other materials reviewed and/or considered by the City in connection with its review and consideration of the Project, the DEIR, the FEIR, and the MMRP, whether prepared by the City, its consultants, or by third parties; • All matters of common knowledge to the members of the City’s City Council, including but not limited to: (i) the City’s General Plan, Zoning Code, and other applicable policies and ordinances; (ii) information regarding the City’s fiscal status and economic and development patterns and trends; (iii) federal, state and local laws, regulations, guidelines and publications applicable to or affecting the Project; and (iv) reports, projections, documents and other materials regarding statewide, regional, and local planning and development matters within and outside of the City; and • All other documents and materials relating to the Project as described in PRC Section 21167.6, as applicable.

The record of proceedings is available for review by responsible agencies and interested members of the public during normal business hours at 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, California. The custodian of these documents is the City of Seal Beach Clerk’s Office.

Page 4 of 55 ends

Page 5 of 55 ends

B. Findings Regarding Preparation and Consideration of the EIR The City Council finds, with respect to the City’s preparation, review and consideration of the EIR, that:
• The City exercised its independent judgment in accordance with PRC Section 21082.1(c) in retaining the independent consulting firm Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) to prepare the EIR, and Stantec prepared the EIR under the supervision and at the direction of the City’s Community Development Director and the EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.
• The City circulated the DEIR for review by responsible and trustee agencies and the public and submitted it to the State Clearinghouse for review and comment by state agencies, as required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
• The EIR and the Project were presented to the City’s Environmental Quality Control Board, which reviewed and considered the DEIR and FEIR, received public comments, and provided comments to City staff for inclusion in the FEIR.
• The EIR and the Project were presented to the City’s Planning Commission, which reviewed and considered, and conducted a public hearing thereon. The Planning Commission determined that the EIR was adequate and sufficient, and prepared in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and recommended that the City Council certify the EIR, adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and these Finding and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and approve the Project.
• The EIR and the Project were presented to the City Council of the City. The City Council reviewed and considered, and conducted a public hearing on, the EIR and Project. • The EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

By these Findings, the City Council ratifies, adopts and incorporates the analysis, explanations, findings, responses to comments, and conclusions of the EIR, except as otherwise specifically provided and described in these Findings.

V. Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts
A detailed analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project, and proposed mitigation measures to address all of the identified potentially significant impacts, is set forth in Section 3.0 of the Initial Study and Section 3.0 of the DEIR, as incorporated into the FEIR. The City Council concurs with the conclusions in the Initial Study and DEIR, as incorporated into the FEIR, that changes or alterations have been required, or incorporated into, the Project and feasible mitigation measures implemented, which avoid or lessen some, but not all, of the Project’s potentially significant environmental effects to less than significant levels. By these Findings, the City Council ratifies and adopts the EIR’s conclusions for all of the following potential environmental impacts, based on the analyses on the referenced pages of the DEIR.

A. Findings Regarding No Impact or Less than Significant Impacts This section identified impacts of the Project that were determined to be no impact or less than significant and do not require mitigation measures, as set forth in Section 3.0 of the Initial Study and Section 3.0 of the

Page 6 of 55 ends

DEIR, as incorporated into the FEIR. The City Council concurs with the conclusions in the Initial Study and DEIR, as incorporated into the FEIR, and makes the following findings with respect to such less than significant impacts.

INITIAL STUDY

1. Aesthetics
Impact AES-a: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

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.

Impact AES-b: The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.

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.

Impact AES-d: The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

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.

2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Impact AG-a: The Project would not result in the conversion of 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.

Page 7 of 55 ends

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 non-agricultural uses. As such, the Initial Study identified that implementation of the Project would have no impact.

Impact AG-b: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.

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.

Impact AG-c: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)).

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.

Impact AG-d: The Project would not result in loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use.

The parcels proposed for rezoning have various designations, and no forest lands are 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.

Impact AG-e: The Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use, or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Development of the Project would require rezoning of the Project area to accommodate low- and moderateincome 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.

3. Biological Resources
Impact BIO-e: The Project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

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 these regulations and ensure the Project does

Page 8 of 55 ends

not lead to damage to or removal of regulated 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.

4. Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-c: The Project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

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 Native American heritage Commission (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.

5. Energy
Impact EN-b: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

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 (CalGreen). 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.

6. Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-a: The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) rupture of a known earthquake fault; ii) strong seismic ground shaking; iii) seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or iv) landslides.

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

Page 9 of 55 ends

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 California Building Code (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 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.

Impact GEO-b: The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

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 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which specifies best management practices (BMPs) for temporary erosion control measures, would be required. Standard erosion control measures would be

Page 10 of 55 ends

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.

Impact GEO-c: The Project would not be located on a 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.

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.

Impact GEO-d: The Project would not be located on expansive or corrosive soil creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

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.

Impact GEO-e: The Project would not be located on soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.

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 for projects within the City. 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.

Page 11 of 55 ends

7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-a: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

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.

Impact HAZ-b: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

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.

Impact HAZ-c: The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

With the exception of two Housing Opportunity Sites, 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) are each 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. 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

Page 12 of 55 ends

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.

Impact HAZ-d: The Project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

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 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. 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 laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials sites, and preparation of ESAs, impacts would be less than significant.

Impact HAZ-f: The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency 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

Page 13 of 55 ends

be required to comply with applicable fire and building codes and would be required to be reviewed by the Orange County Fire Authority’s (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.

Impact HAZ-g: The Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

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.

8. Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-a: The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.

With the implementation of General Plan policies, adherence to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (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 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

Page 14 of 55 ends

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), are 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 Drainage Area Management Plan (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.

Impact HYD-c: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in: i) substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite.

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 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,

Page 15 of 55 ends

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.

9. Land Use and Planning
Impact LU-a: The Project would not physically divide an 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.

10. Minerals
Impact MIN-a: The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.

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 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.

Impact MIN-b: The Project would not 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.

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 National Wildfire Refuge. 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

Page 16 of 55 ends

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.

11. Population and Housing
Impact POP-b: The Project would not displace substantial number of existing people or housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

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.

12. Public Services
Impact PUB-a: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for the following public services: schools or other public facilities.

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.

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

Page 17 of 55 ends

its RHNA allocation. These additional units are not anticipated to result in an increase in demand for 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.

13. Transportation and Circulation
Impact TRANS-c: The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

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 California Department of Transportation (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.

Impact TRANS-d: The Project would not result in inadequate 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.

14. Utilities and Service Systems
Impact UTIL-d: The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

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 California Department of Finance, 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 1,733 additional dwelling units to the City, the 1,733 additional units would be anticipated to result in a population of 3,191 people. Using

Page 18 of 55 ends

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 Senate Bill (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.

Impact UTIL-e: The Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

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.

15. Wildfire
Impact WF-a: The Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

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.

Page 19 of 55 ends

Impact WF-b: The Project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.

The Project proposes a 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.

Impact WF-c: The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.

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. 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 developments 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.

Impact WF-d: The Project would not 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.

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.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

16. Aesthetics
Impact AES-1: The Project is in an urbanized area, and would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

Implementation of the Project would result in the identification of parcels located within the City that have the potential to be developed or redeveloped to accommodate new housing developments and help the City to meet its RHNA. Implementation of the Project would also result in the creation of a new zoning designation, rezoning of several identified Housing Opportunity Sites, and implementation of the Main Street Program allowing for housing on the second floor of commercial buildings. The Project does not propose any actual development to occur on these sites at this time. The Project does not propose Housing

Page 20 of 55 ends

Opportunity Sites on land that provides scenic resources or scenic vistas.

The Project actions would result in a change to the permitted uses and development standards on six of the Housing Opportunity Sites. As the Project does not propose any specific site development at this time, the proposed rezoning of the six Housing Opportunity Sites identified would not result in conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The remaining two Housing Opportunity Sites are not proposed to be rezoned and are proposed to be developed in the future in accordance with the existing zoning designations and development standards of the site, including those that govern scenic quality. Future developments proposed within the Main Street Program area would also be required to be developed in accordance with the development standards and regulations governing scenic quality outlined in the Main Street Specific Plan and the City’s zoning ordinance.

Individual future developments under the Project must comply with the City’s objective design criteria to ensure that proposed individual developments would be developed in accordance with design and zoning standards and existing regulations governing aesthetics and scenic quality and would not be anticipated to construct new structures that would be incompatible with the existing surrounding visual character.

The Project’s new zoning designation would establish specific development standards that would be prepared in accordance with existing City guidelines, regulations, zoning code, and General Plan policies related to scenic quality. Future development projects proposed under the Housing Element Update may deviate from certain development standards of the applicable zoning designations or utilize state housing laws and programs, such as the State density bonus program, resulting in taller buildings and high-density developments. However, future developments would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and subject to the City’s objective design criteria, design requirements of the Main Street Specific Plan, the City’s Municipal Code, and applicable General Plan policies to ensure future development would be compatible with surrounding land uses. Unless exempt, future developments proposed under the Housing Element Update would also be subject to subsequent environmental review. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and impacts would be less than significant.

17. Air Quality
Impact AQ-4: The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people.

Construction activities facilitated by the Project could result in short-term odorous emissions from diesel exhaust associated with diesel-fueled equipment. However, these emissions would be intermittent and would dissipate rapidly from the source. Construction of all future developments facilitated by the Project would also be required to comply with all applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources.

Compliance with the aforementioned regulations would help to minimize emissions, including emissions leading to odors.

The Project entails development of residential uses and would not involve any of the land uses identified to result in odor complaints nor involve any components with the potential to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Finally, SCAQMD regulates objectionable odors through Rule 402, Nuisance. Thus, although not anticipated, if odor complaints are made during implementation of the Project, the SCAQMD would ensure that such odors are addressed, and any potential odor effects are minimized or eliminated. The Project would not result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors, affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Page 21 of 55 ends

18. Biological Resources
Impact BIO-2: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Though sensitive communities are identified within a 10-mile radius of the Project area, there are no sensitive natural communities located within any of the Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area. As stated in the DEIR, Housing Opportunity Site 8 is the only identified site that has undeveloped areas and the primary land cover at the Housing Opportunity Site 8 is ruderal herbaceous with interspersed trees and disturbed/developed including a paved parking area and handball court. Though Housing Opportunity Site 8 provides some undeveloped areas, the site does not include any sensitive natural communities. Additionally, though all Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area contain trees that could be used as potential nesting habitat by bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the potential nesting habitat for birds do not constitute a sensitive natural community. Therefore, future development projects located within any Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area are not anticipated to result in impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Impact BIO-3: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

As stated in the DEIR, there are no wetlands located within any of the Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area. However, there are wetlands and water resources mapped near the Project area. The San Gabriel River flows west of the Project area and the Pacific Ocean is south of the Project area. The Los Alamitos Channel, a concrete lined riverine feature, flows directly to the west of Housing Opportunity Site 2 - Leisure World. The remaining wetlands and waters features are more than 100 feet from each Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area. As the Los Alamitos Channel is located offsite of Housing Opportunity Site 2 and is separated from the site by a paved EVA access lane, future development of Housing Opportunity Site 2 is not anticipated to result in impacts to the Los Alamitos Channel. Additionally, the propensity of the Los Alamitos Channel to support special-status species and include wildlife habitat is limited as the Los Alamitos Channel is a concrete lined channel. Therefore, future development projects located within the Housing Opportunity Sites or the Main Street Program area would not result in adverse effects to protected wetlands and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact BIO-4: The Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

As identified in the DEIR, the Project area includes disturbed/developed and ruderal herbaceous landcover types. The surrounding area is characterized by development, roadways, undeveloped/disturbed open space, agriculture, and the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge to the southeast of the Project area. Most of the landcover types pose significant barriers to terrestrial wildlife movement. Within the Project area, the level of urban development and the presence of physical barriers surrounding the Project area would significantly constrain the passage of most large terrestrial wildlife known to occur in the region. Based on the location of the sites, the sites do not function as a wildlife movement corridor. Therefore, the Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area do not occur within any known wildlife movement corridor or habitat linkage. There are no known bird or bat migratory corridors that would be directly impeded by the Project. Large concentrations of migratory wildlife are not known to utilize any specific portion of the

Page 22 of 55 ends

proposed Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program area and Project activities are not expected to preclude use of the area. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to interfere with the movement of wildlife species or with a migratory wildlife corridor and would not impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites and there would be no impact.

Impact BIO-5: The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

The Orange County General Plan, City of Seal Beach General Plan, and Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)/Caltrans Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan were all reviewed and the Project would not conflict with any of these plans or other City of Seal Beach ordinances.

Therefore, there would be no impact.

19. Energy
Impact EN-1: The Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.

Overall, construction activities associated with each Housing Opportunity Site and within the Main Street Program area facilitated by the Project would result in the consumption of petroleum-based fuels and electricity from electric vehicles. However, there are no unusual Project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment or vehicles that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts of the state. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with each future development facilitated by the Project and the Project as a whole would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than at other construction sites in the region.

The new dwelling units construction under the Project would require energy for normal operations. Building energy usage was estimated for cumulative Project buildout. It is noted that all future buildings would be constructed in compliance with the energy efficiency standards set forth in the California Building Standards Code that is applicable at the time of construction. As the California Building Standards Code will likely require more efficient design measures in the future, the Project’s total energy consumption is not anticipated to result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy. Additionally, though full buildout of the Project would result in transportation fuel consumption, the Project is not anticipated to result in vehicle use that is any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other vehicle uses in the region.

Both construction and operations of future developments facilitated by the Project and the Project as a whole would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Impact EN-2: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

All developments facilitated by the Project would comply with federal, state, and local regulations aimed at reducing energy consumption. Local regulations have been developed in accordance with federal and state energy regulations, such as the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR Title 24, Part 6), the CalGreen (CCR Title 24, Part 11), and SB 743, which are also aimed at reducing energy consumption. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency; therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Page 23 of 55 ends

20. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: The Project would not, for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area.

None of the Housing Opportunity Sites are within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour (Noise Impact Zone 1 – High Noise Impact) for the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB). However, Housing Opportunity Site 5 and the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project are located within the 60 to 65 dB CNEL noise contour (Noise Impact 2 – Moderate Noise Impact). According to the Los Alamitos JFTB Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), residential uses are considered “conditionally consistent” within the 60 to 65 dB CNEL noise contour and it is recommended that residential units be limited or excluded from this area unless sufficiently sound attenuated. The Los Alamitos JFTB AELUP identifies that the residential use interior sound attenuation requirement shall be a CNEL value not exceeding an interior level of 45 dB, which is consistent with the City’s General Plan and the California Building Code requirements. Future developments proposed under the Project that are exposed to existing or projected noise, including aircraft noise, that exceeds noise standards identified in Figure N-3 of the General Plan would be required to prepare a project-specific acoustical study and identify mitigation measures to ensure interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA. Following the noise level standards set in the City’s Noise Element and preparing an acoustical study would minimize potential impacts and ensure that future developments within the 60 to 65 dB CNEL noise contour would be compatible with the AELUP noise policies.

Based on a review of the AELUP, none of the Housing Opportunity Sites, including the residential component of the ORCC Specific Plan Project, are located within the Clear Zones/ Runway Protection Zones for the Los Alamitos JFTB, which are areas designated as having the potential for extreme crash hazard. As such, the Project would not present a safety hazard for persons in relation to airport-related accidents.

Most of the Project, except for Housing Opportunity Site 8 and the portion of the Main Street Specific Plan area located south of Electric Avenue, are located within the notification area and height restriction zone for the Los Alamitos JFTB. Generally, projects within the notification area and height restriction zone for the Los Alamitos JFTB that include the construction or alteration of structures more than 200 feet above mean sea level require filing with the FAA and review by the ALUC. Based on the proposed zoning districts for the Project (eight Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program), building heights are anticipated to range from two to five stories and therefore filing with the FAA regarding aircraft-related safety hazards is not anticipated.

The Project and future developments under the Project would comply with the noise, safety, and height standards established in the AELUP for the Los Alamitos JFTB and therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area and the impact would be less than significant.

21. Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-1: The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

A significant impact would occur if future developments under the Project resulted in a net reduction in the

Page 24 of 55 ends

groundwater supply or lower the groundwater table. Future development facilitated by the Project would likely be located within developed areas of the City and would not be anticipated to substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. The majority of the Housing Opportunity Sites and the entirety of the Main Street Specific Plan area have been developed with impervious surfaces and do not provide groundwater recharge potential. The Housing Opportunity Sites that do contain pervious surfaces may provide some opportunity for groundwater recharge; however, as these areas are extremely small, is not within the basin recharge area, and the Santa Ana River base flow and recycled water are identified as the largest sources of groundwater recharge for the basin, development of these pervious areas would not result in a significant decrease in groundwater recharge potential.

The City utilizes groundwater to supply potable water to the City. As identified in the DEIR, based on Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s (MET’s) reliability and sustainable management of the OC Basin by Orange County Water District (OCWD), the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for the Project concluded that the additional demand from the Project along with the projected demands from the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) can be met as these additional demands would be accounted for during coordination and Basin Production Percentage (BPP) establishment for both the City and Golden State Water Company (GSWC) the following year that future developments under the Project is developed. As such, the Project would not result in significant increases in groundwater supplies. Though the Project itself does not propose any specific developments at this time and approval of this Project would not result in the construction of new development, the Project would facilitate the ability for new developments to be proposed and constructed within the City. The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact HYD-3: The Project would not, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.

The majority of the Housing Opportunity Sites as well as the Main Street Program area are located within areas identified as Zone X with reduced flood risk due to levees. Therefore, these sites would not be located in a flood hazard zone and would not risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation. However, a small portion of Housing Opportunity Site 5 is located within areas identified by Federal Emergency Management Agency as Zone AE (EL 14), or a special flood hazard area with a flood elevation of 14 feet.

Additionally, 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. The DEIR identified that compliance with the City’s Municipal Code requirements would reduce impacts of flooding on future development projects facilitated by the Project to less than significant. As all future development projects would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with City requirements and standards, the future developments would be anticipated to be constructed to withstand any potential flooding impacts and would not risk the release of pollutants due to project inundation. Future developments located in flood risk or tsunami risk areas would be anticipated to be constructed to be located above the anticipated flood elevation.

Additionally, as identified in the City’s General Plan Safety Element, seismically induced seiches are not considered a potential hazard for the City. With minimal potential for inundation by flood, low likelihood of inundation by tsunamis, and no potential for inundation by a seiche, there would be little potential for future development sites to release pollutants into water resulting from inundation. Therefore, the Project

Page 25 of 55 ends

would have a less than significant impact related to releasing pollutants during inundation of future project sites.

Impact HYD-4: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

The City’s water quality control plan is the Basin Plan prepared by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Future residential developments facilitated by the Project would be required to implement and comply with the Basin Plan to ensure that new development minimizes potential water quality impacts.

Additionally, implementation of City standards and requirements would ensure that future developments comply with the Basin Plan. With adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements, runoff associated with both construction and regular operation of future developments facilitated by the Project would not violate any water quality control standards or any water quality control plan, and impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, any future development projects facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with the goals and objectives of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan to ensure that construction and operation of the future project would not result in groundwater impacts. As future developments would be anticipated to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan, impacts would be less than significant.

22. Land Use and Planning
Impact LU-1: The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

As analyzed in the DEIR, the Project would be consistent with applicable General Plan goals and policies adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Additionally, implementation of the Housing Element Update would not conflict with the RHNA allocation for the City as the increase in dwelling units resulting from the Project would be required in order to meet the state mandated allocation.

The Project would also be consistent with the policies of Connect SoCal 2024 which is a long-range blueprint that guides transportation investments and land-use decisions through 2050 while meeting the requirements of California’s SB 375, which calls on each of the state’s 18 metropolitan areas to develop a SCS to accommodate future population growth and reduce GHG emissions from cars and light trucks.

Additionally, the City is currently preparing a Local Costal Plan (LCP), including a Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan, which are planning documents used by local governments to guide development in the coastal zone, in partnership with the Coastal Commission for the purpose of upholding the California Coastal Act. Some of the Housing Opportunity Sites are located within the coastal zone identified in the Draft Land Use Plan and therefore, should development at these sites be proposed prior to certification of an LCP, the Coastal Commission would review development applications to determine consistency with the California Coastal Act. Should the City achieve certification of an LCP, proposed development would need to comply with the regulations, standards, and requirements within the LCP. The Project has been developed in accordance with existing City regulations, policies, and plans and implementation of the Project would not result in conflicts with existing City regulations, policies, and plans adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Page 26 of 55 ends

23. Noise
Impact NOI-3: For a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels.

The City’s Noise Element includes actions to control the development of noise-sensitive land uses in areas exposed to existing or projected noise which exceed the levels specified in Figure N-3 of the General Plan unless the project includes specific and effective mitigation measures to reduce noise levels. This includes noise generated from aircraft flyovers. The City’s General Plan Noise Element states “all new residential projects to be constructed near existing non-transportation noise sources (including, but not limited to commercial facilities, public parks with sports activities) must demonstrate via an acoustical study conducted by a Registered Engineer that the indoor noise levels will be consistent with the limits contained in the noise ordinance.” Where noise-sensitive projects are proposed within areas which exceed standards in Figure N-3 of the General Plan, future developments will be required to prepare a report that performs a project specific analysis of noise impacts and recommend mitigation measures to reduce noise levels in the site to comply with standards set in Figure N-3. Following the noise level standards set in the City’s Noise Element for noise exposure and compliance with the City’s requirements for preparation of an acoustical study would reduce potential impacts and the Project would result in a less than significant impact.

24. Population and Housing
Impact POP-1: The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).

Implementation of the Project would provide for the development of additional dwelling units in the City resulting in an increase in the City’s population. Both the maximum and realistic buildout potential analyzed in the DEIR was identified to result in growth that would exceed the City’s population projection of 25,400 for 2045. However, 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 state. While the scenarios exceed the population projections identified by Southern California Association of Governments (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. Several laws passed in recent years, including the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330), aim 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. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Page 27 of 55 ends

25. Public Services
Impact PUB-1: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for: fire protection or police protection.

While no specific developments are proposed by the Project, implementation of the Project would increase the potential for housing development in the City. Future development of housing facilitated by the Project would increase the number of residents in the City under build out conditions analyzed in the DEIR, and would increase demand for fire and police protection services and thus, the potential need for additional facilities.

The increase in population as a result of future developments facilitated by the Project would be expected to generate more service calls. New fire and police personnel, vehicles, and equipment may be required to provide adequate response times to serve future developments. However, the additional personnel and materials costs would likely be gradual as the increase in population would occur incrementally over time.

All identified Housing Opportunity Sites, the ORCC Specific Plan Project pipeline site, and the Main Street Program area are located within highly urbanized areas of the City already served by existing fire and police services and therefore, as the Project would be located within the existing service boundaries for fire and police protection, the Project is anticipated to be serviced by existing fire and police station without additional new facilities needing to be built.

To reduce the demand of fire protection services, future developments proposed under the Project would need to comply with the City’s and OCFA’s fire safety requirements, which include compliance with the California Fire Code and the CBC, site plan review and approval by the City and OCFA, and final inspection conducted by the City and OCFA to ensure adequate fire safety measures are implemented prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy.

The need for additional or expansion of existing fire and police protection facilities as a result of future discretionary developments would need to go under CEQA review at a project-specific level. In the event new fire or police protection facilities are required, they would be disclosed and mitigated, as feasible, at a project-specific level. Compliance with requirements for individual project-specific CEQA review, City fire safety requirements, California Fire Code and the CBC requirements would reduce the impacts related to fire and police protection services to less than significant. The potential impacts on fire and police protection services generated by the Project will be less than significant.

26. Transportation
Impact TRANS-1: The Project would not conflict with program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

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 review their project’s per the City’s circulation system to ensure that development does not conflict with existing or planned facilities supporting these travel modes.

Page 28 of 55 ends

Any pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities proposed as part of the development of Housing Opportunity Site or within the Main Street Program area would be designed using the appropriate City design standards.

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. 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.

27. Utilities and Service Systems
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.

As identified in the DEIR, the WSA prepared for the Project identified that based on the estimated additional water required for the Project, an increase in supply would be required to meet these demands. The WSA identified that the two water service provider’s (the City and GSWC) 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 purchases. Additionally, as the Project’s future development projects would be built out incrementally over time, the Project’s projected additional demands would be accounted for during water service coordination and establishment for the following year. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to water supplies.

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.

For proposed development (ORCC Specific Plan Project and the Lampson Project), wastewater generation is estimated to increase by 26,720 gpd and 49,468 gpd (Lampson EIR) respectively. Though the wastewater treatment provider is anticipated to have capacity to serve these and the conceptual 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. 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. 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. 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.

28. Cumulative Impacts
Aesthetics: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to aesthetics, light, or glare.

Development in Seal Beach facilitated by the Project in conjunction with buildout of cumulative projects

Page 29 of 55 ends

in the City and surrounding areas could result in impacts to visual resources and aesthetic quality, although visual quality could improve with redevelopment of aging buildings and vacant sites. Implementation of the Project would encourage increased housing development at sites already developed with other uses.

Anticipated Project related impacts, in conjunction with cumulative development allowed per existing regulations, is expected to increase housing development citywide in already developed areas. Therefore, future developments facilitated by the Project in conjunction with cumulative developments could result in impacts to aesthetics. However, similar to future developments under the Project, cumulative developments would be required to comply with existing regulations and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding aesthetic impacts and protecting visual quality. Cumulative developments would be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable building standards and regulations adopted by the City including, but not limited to, building heights and outdoor lighting regulations. Potential aesthetic impacts of future developments facilitated by the Project would be site-specific and would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis at the project level in accordance with the Housing Element Update and General Plan.

Unless exempt, each discretionary cumulative development project would require separate approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential impacts related to aesthetics and identify necessary mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts, where appropriate. Therefore, future developments facilitated by the Project would not result in significant cumulative aesthetic impact and the Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable aesthetic impact.

Energy: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to energy.

Implementation of the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City, would result in increased energy consumption within the City. Potential impacts related to energy resources from future developments that are facilitated by the Project would be site-specific and would require applications for development permits that would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Unless exempt, each cumulative discretionary project would require separate approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential energy consumption impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate.

Additionally, any future developments facilitated by the Project would be subject to compliance with all federal, state, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the California Energy Code Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR Title 24, Part 6), the CALGreen Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), and SB 743. Consequently, any future developments facilitated by the Project would not result in significant environmental impacts from the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction or operation; and would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact related to energy resources.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to hazards and hazardous materials.

The geographic scope of impacts for hazards is limited to the specific project site. Hazards and hazardous materials impacts tend to be site specific and are assessed on a site-by-site basis. However, indirect cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials could occur where regional development patterns place structures and/or people in proximity to significant sources of safety hazards or hazardous materials emissions, or where regional patterns develop new cumulatively hazardous sources near sensitive receptors. As identified in the DEIR, all cumulative developments identified and listed are residential projects and therefore, would not develop new hazardous sources near sensitive receptors. Hazardous

Page 30 of 55 ends

materials utilized during operation of the cumulative developments would be anticipated to be limited to those typical to residential uses and would not be anticipated to require the use of large quantities of hazardous materials. Additionally, all cumulative developments are located within urbanized areas and would not be located on sites that are in proximity to significant sources of safety hazards or hazardous materials emissions.

Anticipated impacts concerning hazards and hazardous materials from future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development within and within proximity of the City, may include future development in areas that are at risk of hazards such as from the nearby airport. Similar to future developments under the Project, cumulative developments would be required to comply with the noise, safety, and height standards established in the AELUP for the Los Alamitos JFTB. Unless exempt, each cumulative discretionary project would require separate approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential adverse site-specific impacts and require mitigation measures as necessary in compliance with federal, state, and local requirements. All potential impacts from future developments facilitated by the Project concerning hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant in consideration of compliance with existing laws, ordinances, regulations and standards. Therefore, with the implementation of applicable regulatory requirements and existing plans and policies, the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact related to hazards and hazardous materials.

Land Use and Planning: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not result in cumulative impacts on land use and planning.

The Project’s anticipated impacts from future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City and directly adjacent to the City, would increase the allowance for additional housing stock in already developed areas. Potential land use impacts would be site-specific and would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis at the project level when future development is proposed in accordance with the Housing Element Update and General Plan. Unless exempt, each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and review under CEQA, which would address any potential land use impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. Consequently, the Housing Element Update identifies future implementation actions to increase housing capacity to accommodate the City’s assigned RHNA pursuant to state, regional, and local growth projections. Therefore, future developments that are facilitated by the Housing Element Update in conjunction with cumulative developments would not result in significant land use impacts.

Furthermore, unless exempt, future developments pursuant to the Housing Element Update and General Plan would be subject to discretionary permits and CEQA evaluation. Cumulative developments would be reviewed by the City under CEQA for consistency with the General Plan and zoning ordinance, as well as with a state or local plan, ordinance, or regulatory standards aimed at avoiding or minimizing an environmental impact. Any significant conflicts would be mitigated or resolved through the City discretional review and approval. Therefore, the Project in combination with cumulative developments would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact related to land use and planning.

Noise: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would have a less than significant cumulative impact on noise.

The geographic scope of the cumulative noise analysis is the immediate project vicinity. If cumulative projects were to have the same construction schedule and timeline as the adjacent Housing Opportunity Site, then there could be a cumulatively considerable increase in construction noise in the area resulting in

Page 31 of 55 ends

potential impacts. However, as future development of Housing Opportunity Sites is currently speculative and there is no timeline for actual buildout for any of Housing Opportunity Sites, it is currently not feasible to predict whether construction noise from buildout of the cumulative projects would combine with construction noise from buildout of the Housing Opportunity Sites in a manner that could result in significant impacts. Buildout of future developments facilitated by the Project and cumulative developments would be required to comply with and adhere to the City’s construction noise ordinances and requirements to minimize impacts.

The Housing Element Update’s anticipated noise and vibration-related impacts from future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City, would increase housing development in an already developed area, thereby resulting in increased ambient noise levels. Potential noise and vibration-related impacts would be site-specific and would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis at the project level when future development is proposed in accordance with the Housing Element Update. Unless exempt, each cumulative project would require separate approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would verify compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and address potential noise and vibration impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. Future developments facilitated by the Project in conjunction with cumulative development are not anticipated to result in significant noise and vibration impacts, or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan, ordinance, or standards aimed at avoiding or minimizing excessive noise, following compliance with the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, the Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable noise or vibration impact, and no mitigation is required.

Population and Housing: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would have a less than significant cumulative impact on population and housing.

The list of cumulative past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding areas include those in the City of Los Alamitos, Long Beach, Westminster, and nearby unincorporated Orange County. Included in this list are candidate sites identified in the Housing Element Update for Long Beach, Westminster, and Orange County for potential future development. Development of these sites would be within the planned growth identified by SCAG for the region and would not result in substantial unplanned population growth. Similar to the City, all jurisdictions within the SCAG region are required to prepare a Housing Element Update that identifies sites within its jurisdictional boundaries for future residential development to accommodate its respective RHNA. Implementation of each respective Housing Element Update and future developments consistent with the Housing Element Update 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 region. As such, the Housing Element Update for each jurisdiction would be the jurisdiction’s proposed plan to accommodate anticipated future growth and would not induce unplanned population growth.

The combination of the cumulative developments outlined in the DEIR proposes the development of a total of 1,773 dwelling units. However, out of the total units proposed by the cumulative developments, only 1,67 dwelling units are actually currently proposed undergoing environmental review. The remaining 1,606 dwelling units are proposed only as a conceptual development for buildout as part of a Housing Element Update or as a potential future project. Development of the currently proposed undergoing environmental review and already approved developments would lead to direct population growth. However, the impacts of the growth have already been analyzed or is currently being analyzed in its project-specific

Page 32 of 55 ends

environmental analysis.

The Housing Element Update would provide for a planned increase in the City’s housing capacity to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. The Housing Element Update does not propose any housing development at this time. Instead, the Housing Element Update identifies a series of implementation actions to facilitate future housing development, as necessary to meet the City’s housing obligations per state law. Unless exempt, future developments facilitated by the Project, as well as cumulative projects, would be subject to discretionary permits from the City or other local decision-making agency, and would be required to undergo applicable CEQA review and be analyzed for its compliance with City or other municipal requirements before their approval. This would ensure that any potential environmental effects stemming from their development would be minimized to the extent feasible. As the Project would not result in significant impacts to population and housing and the Project in combination with cumulative developments would not result in substantial unplanned population growth, the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on population and housing.

Utilities and Service Systems: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts on utilities and service systems.

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.

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. 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. The 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.

Page 33 of 55 ends

B. Findings Regarding Potentially Significant Impacts
The following potential environmental impacts of the Project were determined to be potentially significant and to require mitigation measures to avoid their effects or to reduce their severity, as set forth in Chapter

3.0 of the DEIR, as incorporated into the FEIR. The City Council concurs with the conclusions in the Initial Study and DEIR, as incorporated into the FEIR, and makes the following findings with respect to such potentially significant impacts.

Environmental Impact Report

29. Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: The Project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications on any species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Documentation of Plant and Wildlife Species Workers, Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Mitigation Plan, and Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Preconstruction Surveys will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact BIO-1: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact BIO-1, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, and BIO-2 would minimize impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would protect special-status species and ensure that project design or avoidance mitigation would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires preparation of applicable preconstruction surveys for construction activities that would occur during the nesting season and requires appropriate minimization measures be implemented if active nests are found within the project site. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to listed or special-status plants and wildlife to a less than significant level.

30. Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as identified in Section 15064.5.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Development Review Process for Historical Resources will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact CUL-1: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact CUL-1, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would require the City to determine whether the project applicant is required to conduct further study to assess the project’s potential impact on historical resources prior to approval of discretionary projects and preparation of Historical Resource Evaluation Report if the City determines the project requires further study. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level and this would be accomplished by requiring a process for the identification of historical resources and the analysis of potential impacts on historical resources resulting from future development activities. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, potential impacts to historical resources would be less than significant.

Page 34 of 55 ends

Impact CUL-2: The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Development Review Process for Archaeological Resources and CUL-3: Human Remains will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact CUL-2: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and CUL-2 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact CUL2, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would require the City to conduct a records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center to review the current data on file for the project location and if it is determined that known archaeological cultural resources are within a 0.25-mile of the project site, the City shall require the project applicant to retain a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in archaeology to assess the project’s potential impacts to archaeological cultural resources prior to approval of discretionary projects. Mitigation Measure CUL-3 outlines requirements to be followed if human remains are found during construction activities. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and CUL-3, potential impacts related to archaeological resources would be less than significant.

31. Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-1: The Project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring Program will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact GEO-1: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact GEO-1, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires preparation of a paleontological monitoring program for each future development to ensure that potential impacts to undiscovered paleontological resources are reduced. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would require a paleontologist meeting professional standards as defined by Murphey et al. (2019) as a Principal Investigator be retained as the designated Project Paleontologist for each development, to review projectspecific construction plans and develop a project-specific paleontological mitigation program prior to the issuance of the first action and/or permit which would allow for site disturbance. Mitigation Measure GEO1 would ensure that potential future developments that results from implementation of the Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects to paleontological resources and impacts would be less than significant.

32. Greenhouse Gas Emission
Impact GHG-2: The Project could conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Quantify Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions, Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Quantify Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions, Mitigation Measure AQ-3:

Construction Health Risk Assessment, and Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Implement GHG Reduction Measures will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact GHG-2: The DEIR evaluated the Project consistency with CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan and SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024 RTP/SCS which were both adopted for the purpose of

Page 35 of 55 ends

reducing GHG emissions. The Project was determined to have the potential to conflict with an applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the Project was determined to be consistent with the applicable strategies recommended in the 2022 Scoping Plan and with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, and GHG1, the Project was considered consistent with the overarching goals of Connect SoCal 2024. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures, the Project’s impacts were reduced to a less than significant level.

33. Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-2: The Project could substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or offsite; iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) Impede or redirect flood flows.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact HYD-2: Site-specific drainage reports to evaluate hydrological impacts would be prepared as individual developments are proposed on individual Housing Opportunity Sites.

However, the development of some of the Housing Opportunity Sites may result in the alteration of existing drainage patterns of the site or area and have potential adverse effects on existing surface drainage patterns caused by the creation of new impervious surfaces. Additionally, there are existing storm drainage capacity issues within portions of the City. Therefore, Project implementation and development of some of the identified sites may result in flooding related impacts due to the existing drainage system in the City not providing adequate capacity.

The potential impacts would be minimized through compliance with City Municipal Code requirements and General Plan policies related to construction and post-construction stormwater controls and measures for minimizing erosion and stormwater runoff. As the City already has existing storm drainage capacity issues within portions of the City, future development projects facilitated by the Project could contribute to the existing issues and could result in increased impacts. Therefore, the Project identified Mitigation Measure HYD-1 to reduce potential impacts which would require future development projects facilitated by the Project to prepare a site-specific evaluation to determine the potential impact the proposed development project could have on the existing deficiencies to the City’s storm drainage system and provide onsite mitigation measures to resolve impacts to the City’s storm drain infrastructure or fund improvements to the storm drainage system as a condition of approval for the proposed development. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1, Project impacts were reduced to a less than significant level.

34. Noise
Impact NOI-1: The Project could result in a generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise level in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Noise Mitigation Plan will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Page 36 of 55 ends

Findings Regarding Impact NOI-1: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact NOI-1, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would require Project applicants to describe and commit to a noise mitigation plan that would be developed when the individual project information is available to make final decisions on all specific mitigation measures to be implemented. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, the impact of construction noise would be less than significant. With implementation of the mitigation measure, impacts would be less than significant.

Impact NOI-2: The Project could result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Noise and Vibration Analysis will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact NOI-2: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact NOI-2, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would require Project applicants to prepare a noise and vibration analysis prior to issuance of a building permit to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to construction activities for projects that require pile driving during construction within 135 feet from fragile structures, such as historical resources, 75 feet from older residential structures, of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 55 feet of new residential or commercial buildings; or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure. With implementation of the mitigation measure, impacts would be less than significant.

35. Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact TRIB-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.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Tribal Consultation Requirements and TCR-2:

Inadvertent Discoveries will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact TRIB-1: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measures TRC-1 and TCR-2 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact TRIB1, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would require any future development projects proposed within one of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area to consult with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation tribal government as requested by the tribal representative, and Mitigation Measure TCR-2 would ensure inadvertent discovery procedures are followed in the event previously undiscovered subsurface tribal cultural resources are found at the project site. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2, potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

Page 37 of 55 ends

36. Utilities and Service Systems
Impact UTIL-1: The Project could require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Infrastructure and Utility Evaluation will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact UTIL-1: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would substantially lessen the severity of Impact UTIL-1, such that this potential impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would ensure that 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 would 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. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIl-1, potential impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant.

37. Cumulative Impacts
Biological Resources: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to biological resources.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Documentation of Plant and Wildlife Species, Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Mitigation Plan, and Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Preconstruction Surveys will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Cumulative Biological Resources Impact: Future developments facilitated by the Project in conjunction with cumulative development in the City and nearby areas, would increase development in ruderal and developed/disturbed areas and could result in impacts to biological resources.

The Housing Opportunity Sites and the Main Street Program area provide limited value as wildlife corridors due to their proximity to previous developments; however, some sites are in close proximity to natural areas, which could function as a wildlife corridor and could be impacted by future development. Therefore, potential biological impacts would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis at the project level when future development is proposed. Though the City and majority of the surrounding areas are highly urbanized and disturbed, some cumulative developments identified may be located on sites that are less disturbed and could have the potential to provide habitat for wildlife. Unless exempt, each cumulative project would require separate discretionary permit approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential biological resource impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate.

Consequently, the Project would not result in significant environmental impacts from the violation of biological resource requirements, the taking of special-status plants or wildlife, or degradation of wildlife corridors. Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation and compliance with regulatory requirements, the Project’s contribution to cumulatively considerable impacts on biological resources would be less than significant.

Page 38 of 55 ends

Cultural Resources: The Project, in conjunction with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the City, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to cultural resources.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Development Review Process for Historical Resources, CUL-2: Development Review Process for Archaeological Resources, and CUL-3: Human Remains will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Cumulative Cultural Resources Impact: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3 would substantially lessen the severity of cultural resources impact. The geographic scope of the cumulative cultural resources analysis is the project site. The Project would implement Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3 to ensure unknown and undiscovered cultural resources are not adversely affected by project-related construction activities. Unless exempt, each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential historical and archaeological impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. Each cumulative project would be anticipated to require implementation of similar mitigation measures as those identified for the Project to reduce potential project specific impacts to cultural resources. Accordingly, the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on cultural resources.

Geology and Soils: The Project, in conjunction with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the City, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to geology and soils.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring Program will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Cumulative Geology and Soils (Paleontological) Resources Impact: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would substantially lessen the severity of paleontological resources impact. The geographic scope of the cumulative paleontological resources analysis is the project site. Potential impacts would be site-specific and would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis at the project level when future development is proposed. Unless exempt, each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential impacts concerning geology, soils, and paleontological resources and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. The Project would implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1 to ensure unknown and undiscovered paleontological resources are not adversely affected by project-related construction activities. Cumulative developments would be anticipated to require implementation of similar mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts.

Accordingly, the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on geology and soils.

Hydrology and Water Quality: The Project, in conjunction with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the City, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to hydrology and water quality.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure HYD-1: Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Cumulative Hydrology and Water Quality Impact: Development under the Project in combination with cumulative development could increase stormwater runoff such that water quality impacts could occur. Cumulative developments may reconfigure the drainage basin for the City. However,

Page 39 of 55 ends

new development and redevelopment within the City would be subject to City, state, and federal policies and ordinances, design, guidelines, the Zoning Code, and other applicable regulatory requirements that reduce impacts related to water quality on a project-by-project basis. Overall, implementation of the Project and cumulative developments would not result in substantial groundwater use within the entire groundwater basin or affect groundwater recharge; and would not modify the course of an existing stream or river.

Required conformance with state and local policies and regulations would reduce hydrology and water quality impacts associated with future cumulative development.

The anticipated Project related impacts from future housing development facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City and its vicinity, would include increased development in a previously developed area (changes in impermeable surfaces) and could result in impacts to water quality. Potential impacts concerning hydrology and water quality would be site-specific and would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis at the project level when future development is proposed including in accordance with the Housing Element Update. As required by Mitigation Measure HYD-1, Future development projects facilitated by the Housing Element and Zoning Code Update shall be required to prepare a site-specific evaluation to determine the potential impacts the proposed development project could have on the existing deficiencies to the City’s storm drainage system and provide onsite mitigation measures to resolve impacts to the City’s storm drain infrastructure. If it is found that using onsite mitigation measures do not resolve all impacts consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, then it shall be required to fund improvements to the storm drainage system as a condition of approval for the proposed development.

For the ORCC Project, specific impact findings associated with the development of the ORCC Project are being evaluated in a standalone EIR. Consequently, future housing development facilitated by the Project and cumulative development would not result in significant cumulative impacts concerning violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, decreased groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge, alterations to existing drainage patterns, or conflicts with water quality or groundwater plans. Therefore, the Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact concerning hydrology and water resources.

Tribal Cultural Resources: The Project, in conjunction with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the City, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to tribal cultural resources.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Tribal Consultation Requirements and TCR-2:

Inadvertent Discoveries will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Cumulative Tribal Cultural Resources Impact: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure TCR-1 and TCR-2 would substantially lessen the severity of tribal cultural resources impact. Based on tribal consultation, research, and the precontact 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, there is potential for land within cumulative development areas to contain tribal cultural resources that are not yet known.

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, Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level related to tribal cultural resources.

Page 40 of 55 ends

Unless exempt, each cumulative project would require separate 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.

C. Findings Regarding Significant and Unavoidable Impacts The following potential environmental impacts of the Project were determined to be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation measures to reduce their severity, as set forth in Chapter

38. Air Quality
Impact AQ-1: The Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Quantify Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions and Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Quantify Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact AQ-1: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure AIR-1 and AIR-2 would not substantially lessen the severity of Impact AQ1, such that this potential impact would be significant and unavoidable. Construction and operations of the residential development facilitated by the Project are anticipated to exceed the threshold of significance established by the SCAQMD for VOC emissions even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. Additionally, implementation of the Project would result in household and population growth that exceeds the projections in the 2022 AQMP and, as a result, the Project is expected to result in emissions that are higher than what was planned for the City in the 2022 AQMP. Because the Project could contribute to a delay in attainment of the ozone AAQS and would result in an exceedance of the planned growth within the City, the Project could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Even with the implementation of mitigation, the impact remains significant and unavoidable.

Impact AQ-2: The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Findings Regarding Impact AQ-2: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure AQ- 1 and AQ-2 would not substantially lessen the severity of Impact AQ2, such that this potential impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Construction activities facilitated by the Project would result in emissions of criteria pollutants and fugitive dust. Buildout of Housing Opportunity Site 4, which is expected to be the most emissions-intensive buildout out of the eight identified Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program, was identified to potentially

Page 41 of 55 ends

generate construction emissions that exceed SCAQMD mass daily thresholds for VOC. Since the largest Housing Opportunity site exceeds SCAQMD thresholds, other sites may result in potentially significant emissions due to a more intensive construction timeline, additional demolition and grading, or additional construction trips. Under Mitigation Measure AQ-1, each future development project facilitated by the Project would be required to quantify construction emissions and, if emissions exceed the applicable thresholds, the future development project would reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible, including through the use of super-compliant VOC coatings. While Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce construction exhaust emissions, potential future development projects accommodated under the Project, both individually and cumulatively, could still exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for construction. As a result, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the impact from construction of the Project remains significant and unavoidable.

Emissions during operation of the Project would be generated primarily from resident vehicle trips to and from the sites (mobile sources). In addition, the buildout facilitated by the Project would generate emissions from area sources, which include the use of fireplaces, consumer products, landscaping equipment, and others. Full buildout of the dwelling units facilitated by the Project would result in VOC emissions that exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AQ-2 is required. However, even with mitigation, operational emissions of VOC would exceed the threshold of significance. While Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce operational emissions, cumulative future development projects accommodated under the Project could still exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Impact AQ-3: The Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Quantify Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions, Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Quantify Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions, and Mitigation Measure AQ3: Construction Health Risk Assessment will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact AQ-3: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3 would not substantially lessen the severity of Impact AQ-3, such that this potential impact would be significant and unavoidable.

During construction associated with the Project, the potential exists for emissions of fugitive dust, Valley fever, NOA, and DPM to be released. Most of the fugitive dust generated during construction activities would remain localized and would be deposited near each construction site. Additionally, SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, limits the discharge of PM emissions and establishes Best Available Control Measures that are applicable to all construction activities. Consistent with the SCAQMD Best Available Control Measures, construction of each future development project facilitated by the Project would be required to use water trucks to stabilize soils. In addition, the City of Seal Beach is generally built out; therefore, much of the development facilitated by the Project would occur in urban areas where conditions are generally not dry, dusty, or windy. As required by Mitigation Measure AQ-1, development of each future development projects subject to discretionary approval shall evaluate their individual construction emissions. If the future development project is determined to result in PM emissions that exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, then minimization measures would be incorporated to reduce PM emissions to the maximum extent feasible.

Overall, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, construction activities associated with future developments facilitated by the Project would not result in sensitive receptor exposure to substantial

Page 42 of 55 ends

concentrations of fugitive dust.

Many of the future development projects on Housing Opportunity Sites and within the Main Street Program facilitated by the Project would entail demolition of existing structures in order to accommodate new housing. For buildings constructed prior to 1980, the Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1926.1101) states that all thermal system insulation and surface materials must be designated as “presumed asbestos containing material” unless proven otherwise. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403, Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities, would ensure that any ACBMs encountered during construction activities are handled appropriately, and risks to existing sensitive receptors would not occur.

SCAQMD has established localized significance thresholds for NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 to determine the risk of elevated levels of ozone precursors and particulate matter at nearby receptors. Thresholds were established based on an individual project’s size, location, and distance to receptors. However, SCAQMD established in the PEIR for the 2016 AQMP that the LST screening methodology is not applicable to regional projects such as local general plans, specific plans, or air quality plans since the individual project plans are typically not known at plan adoption. Therefore, since the analysis is evaluating the buildout of the Housing Element Update, a localized construction analysis would be speculative for individual projects.

However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the Project would be required to quantify the individual construction emissions and reduce as feasible below SCAQMD thresholds.

Exposure to DPM from diesel vehicles and off-road construction equipment can result in health risks to nearby sensitive receptors. The sensitive receptors in and adjacent to each of the Housing Opportunity Sites would be the most susceptible to adverse health effects resulting from construction-related DPM emissions.

The actual level of risk would depend on a variety of factors that can only be determined once the specifics of a project are known. Since the details regarding future construction activities are not known at this time, including phasing of future individual projects, construction duration and phasing, and preliminary construction equipment, preparation of a meaningful health risk assessment (HRA) is not possible at the plan level. Rather, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 is required to assess the potential impact associated with exposing sensitive receptors to substantial concentration of DPM. Since health risks are a factor of duration of exposure, source emission rates, and distance of the receptor, an individual’s health risks during construction may still be significant and unavoidable.

Based on the analysis in the DEIR, during construction, the Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3, the impact would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible. However, the impact may remain significant and unavoidable.

39. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1: The Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Implement GHG Reduction Measures will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding GHG-1: Buildout of the future developments facilitated by the Project would generate GHG emissions during construction and operations. Full buildout of the dwelling units facilitated by the Project would result in GHG emissions that exceed the SCAQMD threshold of significance. The Project could generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. While implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which provides a menu of GHG reduction measures, would

Page 43 of 55 ends

reduce GHG impacts, the Project would still result in emissions that exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold of significance. Therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

40. Public Services
Impact PUB-1: The Project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for: Parks.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure PUB-1: Parks and Recreation will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact PUB-1 (parks): Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure PUB-1 would not substantially lessen the severity of Impact PUB-1 (parks), such that this potential impact would be significant and unavoidable.

The City’s Municipal Code Section 10.50.010 includes the Seal Beach Park Dedication Ordinance which requires five acres of parkland to be located within the City per 1,000 residents. As identified by the City, the City currently has a parks ratio of 3.35 acres per 1,000 residents. Therefore, the City does not currently meet the desired acreage requirements for parkland and is at a deficit for parkland. Projected growth as a result of the Project would require an additional 14.46 acres of parkland to be developed further increasing the deficit of the City.

Thus, the future developments facilitated by the Project would result in the need for new additional park facilities. The Parks Inventory prepared as part of the City of Seal Beach Parks and Community Services Master Plan in 2013 states that it is readily apparent that the City would not be able to ever achieve the local Municipal Code standard of five acres per 1,000 people due to a high percentage of the City being developed prior to the adoption of the current acreage goal. The City does not currently meet the necessary acreage requirements as a significant portion of the City has been developed prior to the City adopting its parks standard. Excess park and recreation land does not exist to meet the forecast demand that would be generated by future developments facilitated by the Project and would result in impacts to parks.

Future development of identified Housing Opportunity Sites as well as new developments within the Main Street Program area facilitated by the Project would be subject to subsequent individual environmental review to analyze its potential impacts to park facilities. If impacts to parks are identified during individual environmental review, mitigation of impacts would be required, as feasible, at a project-specific level. In addition, future residential developments would be required to comply with Municipal Code Section

10.50.010, Parkland Dedication and Fees, which requires new developments to dedicate land and/or pay a fee for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing park and recreational facilities as a condition of tentative map approval.

Future developments proposed under the Project’s compliance with requirements for individual project specific environmental review and compliance with Municipal Code Section 10.50.010, Parkland Dedication and Fees, would reduce potential impacts related to park facilities. Additionally, Mitigation Measure PUB-1 was identified to ensure that project-specific impacts resulting from individual development projects facilitated by the Project would be reduced and mitigated to the extent feasible.

However, as stated above, the City does not currently meet the necessary acreage requirements and there are limited excess park and recreation land that would be able to be developed to meet the forecast demand

Page 44 of 55 ends

that would be generated by future developments facilitated by the Project. Therefore, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure PUB-1, the Project and future developments facilitated by the Project would result in substantial impacts to parks. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

41. Recreation
Impact REC-1: The Project would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure PUB-1: Parks and Recreation will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact REC-1: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure PUB-1 would not substantially lessen the severity of Impact REC-1, such that this potential impact would be significant and unavoidable.

The Project does not propose any development. However, the Housing Element Update would identify a series of implementation actions to increase housing capacity that would induce population growth in the City. Future developments facilitated by the Project and the resulting population growth, would incrementally increase the City’s demand for park and recreation land. The City’s Municipal Code Section

10.50.010, Parkland Dedication and Fees, requires provision of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

Therefore, resulting population growth from future developments facilitated by the Project analyzed in the DEIR would require an additional 14.46 acres of parkland within the City.

The forecasted population growth could also incrementally increase the use of existing recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration could occur or be accelerated. The Parks Inventory prepared as part of the City of Seal Beach Parks and Community Services Master Plan in 2013 states that it is readily apparent that the City would not be able to ever achieve the statewide standards or reach the local Municipal Code standard of five acres per 1,000 people due to a high percentage of the City being developed prior to the adoption of the current acreage goal. The City does not currently meet the desired acreage requirements as a significant portion of the City has been developed prior to the time the Quimby Act was passed. Excess park and recreation land does not exist to meet the forecast demand that would be generated by future developments facilitated by the Project and would result in the overuse of existing recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration could occur or be accelerated.

Future developments facilitated by implementation of the Project would result in further impacts to parks and recreational facilities beyond the existing conditions. In accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 10.50.010, Parkland Dedication and Fees, as a condition of tentative map approval, any future developments and the subdivider would be required to dedicate land and/or pay a fee for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing park and recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. Any fees contributed would be required to be used for either acquiring land or developing new or rehabilitating existing park and recreational facilities. Adherence to mandatory requirements and regulations for providing recreational opportunities would support the City’s goals for providing sufficient recreation opportunities for residents. Implementation of Mitigation Measure PUB-1, identified in Section 3.13, Public Services, and the dedication of land and payment of fees would reduce potential impacts to parks and recreational facilities. However, as stated above, the City does not currently meet the park acreage standards set by the General Plan and there is limited excess park and recreation land that would be able to be developed to meet the forecast demand that would be generated by future developments facilitated by the

Page 45 of 55 ends

Project. Therefore, the Project and future developments facilitated by the Project would result in substantial physical deterioration of existing neighborhood or regional parks. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Impact REC-2: The Project would include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure PUB-1: Parks and Recreation will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact REC-2: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure PUB-1 would not substantially lessen the severity of Impact REC-2, such that this potential impact would be significant and unavoidable.

As concluded in REC-1 above, the Project’s maximum buildout scenario would create a demand for park and recreation land of approximately 14.46 acres. As the City’s existing parks acreage does not meet the applicable standard of five acres per 1,000 people, and due to the limited land available for development within the City, sufficient excess park and recreation land does not exist to meet the increased demand that may be generated by future developments facilitated by the Project. Therefore, the increase in residents resulting from future developments under the Project would require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which could result in an adverse physical effect on the environment. Future construction or expansion of recreational facilities required as a result of future developments facilitated by the Project would be required to complete applicable environmental review at a project specific level to determine the potential impacts that would result from construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

As outlined in Mitigation Measure PUB-1, all future developments facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Section 10.50.010, Parkland Dedication and Fees, which as a condition of tentative map approval, requires any future developments and subdivider to dedicate land and/or pay a fee for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing park and recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. Adherence to mandatory requirements and regulations for providing recreation would support the City’s goals for providing sufficient recreation opportunities for residents and would reduce potential impacts. Future developments facilitated by the Project would require construction or expansion of recreational facilities in the future which may have an adverse effect on the environment and therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

42. Transportation
Impact TRANS-2: The Project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision(b).

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Impact TRANS-2: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 would not substantially lessen the severity of Impact TRANS-2, such that this potential impact would be significant and unavoidable.

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. The VMT analysis

Page 46 of 55 ends

shows that each of the Housing Opportunity Sites and Main Street Program could exceed the citywide average home-based VMT per capita by up to approximately 30 percent. Therefore, the Project would have a significant impact.

As outlined 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. 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 such as the DEIR. 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, even with implementation of mitigation measures the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact.

43. Cumulative Impacts
Air Quality: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would result in a significant cumulative impact related to air quality.

Findings Regarding Cumulative Air Quality Impact: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3 would not substantially lessen the severity of air quality impacts due to the uncertain future buildout scenario of the Project. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 requires preparation and submittal of technical air quality assessments estimating project construction- and operation-related criteria pollutant emissions to the City for review and approval prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 requires preparation and submittal of a construction health risk assessment to the City for review and approval prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects.

Implementation of the Project, including future developments on the eight Housing Opportunity Sites, the ORCC Specific Plan pipeline site, and within the Main Street Program area facilitated by the Housing Element Update, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City, would result in emissions of pollutants from construction and operations. Additionally, the SCAB has been designated as a nonattainment area for both the federal and state standards for O3 and PM2.5, the state standard for PM10, and the federal standard for lead. The existing non-attainment status of the SCAB is the result of cumulative emissions from all sources of these air pollutants and their precursors within the SCAB as well as pollutant transport from surrounding areas.

Potential land use impacts are site-specific and would require evaluation of future housing development on a case-by-case basis. Unless exempt, each cumulative discretionary project would require separate approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential air quality impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. While some future development projects may not result in a significant impact, as discussed above, other future development projects would result in emissions that are considered significant. Consequently, future developments facilitated by the Project could result in

Page 47 of 55 ends

significant environmental impacts from pollutant emissions and may conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan, ordinance, or standards aimed at avoiding or minimizing pollutant emissions. Therefore, the Project, including future developments facilitated by the Project, could result a cumulatively considerable air quality impact.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would result in a significant cumulative impact related to greenhouse gas emissions.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Implement GHG Reduction Measures will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emission Impact: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would not substantially lessen the severity of cumulative GHG impacts. Development under the Project in combination with cumulative development could increase GHG emissions. Global GHG emissions are inherently a cumulative issue that is understood for CEQA purposes to be an existing significant and adverse condition. GHG emissions from one project cannot, on their own, result in changes in climatic conditions; therefore, the emissions from any project must be considered in the context of their contribution to cumulative global emissions, which is the basis for determining a significant cumulative impact. This is determined through the project’s consistency with applicable GHG emission thresholds and applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Although the geographic scope of cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions is global, this analysis focuses on the Project’s direct and/or indirect generation of GHG emissions on the region and the state. As discussed in the DEIR analysis, implementation of the Project would result in a significant impact related to GHG emissions. Therefore, the Project’s incremental contribution to the existing significant impact is cumulatively considerable.

Public Services: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would result in a significant cumulative impact related to public services.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure PUB-1: Parks and Recreation will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Cumulative Public Services Impact: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure PUB-1 would not substantially lessen the severity of cumulative public services impacts, specifically those related to parks.

Cumulative development in Seal Beach and surrounding areas, including but not limited to new development facilitated by the Housing Element, would increase demand for public services provided by the City, including fire and police protection services, and parks. The Project, including future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development citywide and within neighboring cities that are also located within the respective service areas for fire and police protection services, would increase demands for public services that could require facility expansion or construction.

Potential impacts would be dependent on existing service capacity of fire and police protection services at the time of individual project approval and the incremental increase in the need for fire and police protection services resulting from other developments. Potential impacts would require evaluation at the project level when future development is proposed in accordance with the Housing Element Update and General Plan.

Unless exempt, each cumulative discretionary project would require separate approval and evaluation under

Page 48 of 55 ends

CEQA, which would address potential impacts to public services and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. The Project would not result in significant cumulative environmental impacts concerning fire and police protection services.

However, future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development would increase demands for parks. The increased demand for park facilities during the Housing Element Update’s planning period (2021-2029) would be significant and would not be accommodated by the existing supply and thus, would require the need for construction or expansion of recreational facilities, the construction of which could result in significant impact. Potential increased demands for recreational facilities from cumulative development would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis at the project level when future development is proposed in accordance with the Housing Element Update and General Plan.

Population growth from future developments facilitated by the Project would require additional parkland within the City. However, even if the additional parkland was developed, the City would still continue to be at a deficit of parkland and would not be able to meet the standard of five acres per 1,000 people. The development of cumulative past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding area would further increase the need for additional parkland in the City.

Unless exempt, each cumulative discretionary project would require separate approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential impacts to recreation facilities and identify mitigation measures, where appropriate. The Project and cumulative development would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative environmental impacts concerning parks and recreation facilities. Therefore, the Project would cause a cumulatively considerable impact on recreation resources, and Mitigation Measure PUB-1 is required. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure PUB-1 would not reduce impacts to a less than significant level and therefore, the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable public service impact.

Recreation: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would result in a significant cumulative impact related to recreation.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure PUB-1: Parks and Recreation will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Cumulative Recreation Impact: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure PUB-1 would not substantially lessen the severity of cumulative recreation impacts. Cumulative development in Seal Beach and surrounding areas, including but not limited to new development facilitated by the Housing Element, would increase demand for recreation facilities. Future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative developments, would increase demands for recreational facilities. The increased demand for park and recreation facilities during the Housing Element Update’s planning period (2021-2029) would be significant and would not be accommodated by the existing supply and would require the need for construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Population growth from future developments facilitated by the Project would require an additional 14.46 acres of parkland within the City. However, even if the

14.46 acres of additional parkland was developed, the City would continue to be at a deficit of parkland and would not be able to meet the standard of five acres per 1,000 people. The development of cumulative past, present, and probable future residential projects in the City and surrounding area would further increase the need for additional parkland in the City. Potential increased demands for recreational facilities from cumulative developments would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis at the project level when the

Page 49 of 55 ends

future development is proposed in accordance with the Housing Element Update and General Plan.

Cumulative developments proposed within the City and surrounding areas would be anticipated to further increase the existing deficit in parkland and would result in increased impacts.

However, implementation of Mitigation Measure PUB-1 would not reduce impacts to a less than significant level and therefore, the Project would result a cumulatively considerable recreation impact.

Transportation: The Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would result in a significant cumulative impact related to transportation.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis will be implemented for the Project as provided in the MMRP.

Findings Regarding Cumulative Transportation Impact: Based on the DEIR and the entire record before the City, the Council finds that Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 would not substantially lessen the severity of cumulative transportation impacts.

As outlined in the DEIR, future developments facilitated by the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City or projects that may utilize City roads would increase housing development in previously developed areas and could result in transportation impacts. 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 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, the Project would also have a cumulative significant and unavoidable impact.

VI. Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project, and then evaluate the comparative merits of such alternatives. (Guidelines §15126(a)).

A. Objectives for the Project
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 Project’s basic objectives of the Project are as follows:
• Protect and improve quality of life for current and future residents.

Page 50 of 55 ends

• Encourage new housing for households at all income levels and for households with a range of diverse housing needs, and in order to comply with and implement State Housing law. • 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.

B. Significant Environmental Impacts of the Project
Based on the analysis in Chapter 3.0 of the DEIR, the City has determined that most of the Project’s potentially significant environmental effects would be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of the mitigation measures described in the Initial Study, DEIR and MMRP.

However, the following impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation measures.
• Air Quality
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Public Services (Parks)
• Recreation
• Transportation (VMT)
C. Project Alternatives Descriptions
Through the environmental review process, the City identified the following project alternative for consideration:

No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative. The No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative assumes that certification of the Housing Element Update would not occur and the establishment of a new zoning designation and rezoning of specific parcels proposed as part of the Project would not occur. The six rezone sites identified for the eight Housing Opportunity Sites would not be rezoned to the new MC/RHD zoning district and would continue to be zoned its existing zoning designations. Additionally, the Main Street Program which proposes to amend the existing Main Street Specific Plan to allow for residential uses on the second story of structures within the Main Street Specific Plan area would not occur, and new residential development would not be allowed under the existing zoning in the Main Street Specific Plan area.

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.

Under the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative, the City would not meet the target of residential units

Page 51 of 55 ends

projected by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the City of Seal Beach, and would potentially be in conflict with SCAG’s RHNA allocation to the City of Seal Beach.

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 are 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.

D. Findings Relating to Alternatives
Based on the evaluation and analysis of project alternatives set forth in Chapter 4.0 of the DEIR, and on the entire record of proceedings for the Project, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:

Findings Relating to the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative Findings. The No Project Alternative is described and discussed under Chapter 4.5.1 of the DEIR. 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 as 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 and GHG emissions compared to the Project. However, the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would increase potential impacts to land use and planning as it would not contribute toward the City’s RHNA numbers and would not provide for the planning of enough units for the City to meet its target under the RHNA. Additionally, the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative would not meet the majority of the Project’s objectives including the following:
• 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.

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.

Page 52 of 55 ends

VII. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Introduction
The City of Seal Beach is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review and certification of the FEIR for the City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code and Main Street Specific Plan Updates Project. As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the Project. In making this determination the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 which provides as follows:
a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal (sic) project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.” b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.

In addition, PRC Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project.

Pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the Project against the following unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to the Project, none of which both meet the project objectives and is environmentally preferable to the Project for the reasons discussed in the Findings Regarding Project Alternatives.

The City, the Lead Agency for this Project, having reviewed the FEIR, and reviewed all written materials within the City’s public record and heard all oral testimony presented at the City public hearing, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which balances the benefits of the Project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the Project.

Page 53 of 55 ends

Significant Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts
Although many of the Project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated, as described in the Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts, there remain some potential impacts concerning air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, public services, recreation, and transportation for which complete mitigation is not feasible. For these impacts, mitigation measures were identified and adopted by the City as Lead Agency, however, even with implementation of the measures, the City finds that the impacts described below cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant. The impacts and alternatives are described below and were also addressed in the Findings. As identified in the FEIR, implementation of the Project would result in the following significant impacts even after imposition of all feasible mitigation measures:

Impact AQ-1, Impact AQ-2, Impact AQ-3, Cumulative: Construction and operations of the residential development facilitated by the Project is anticipated to exceed the threshold of significance established by the SCAQMD for VOC emissions even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2.

Additionally, implementation of the Project would result in household and population growth that exceeds the projections in the 2022 AQMP and, as a result, the Project is expected to result in emissions that are higher than what was planned for the City in the 2022 AQMP. Because the Project could contribute to a delay in attainment of the ozone AAQS and would result in an exceedance of the planned growth within the City, the Project could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The Project would conflict with SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP and even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact.

Construction and operation of the Project would result in generation of emissions and was identified to result in VOC emissions that exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold. While Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce construction exhaust and operation emissions, potential and cumulative future development projects accommodated under the Project, both individually and cumulatively, could still exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. The Project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds and could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria air pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to criteria air pollutants.

Project construction could expose sensitive receptors in and adjacent to each of the Housing Opportunity Sites to adverse health effects resulting from construction-related DPM emissions. The actual level of risk would depend on a variety of factors that can only be determined once the specifics of a project are known.

Since the details regarding future construction activities are not known at this time, preparation of a meaningful health risk assessment (HRA) is not possible at the plan level. Rather, Mitigation Measure AQ3 is required to assess the potential impact associated with exposing sensitive receptors to substantial concentration of DPM. Since health risks are a factor of duration of exposure, source emission rates, and distance of the receptor, an individual’s health risks during construction may still be significant and unavoidable. The Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction and operation and even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3 the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to sensitive receptors. In addition, the Project would have a cumulatively considerable impact related to GHG emissions.

Impact GHG-1 and Cumulative: Full buildout of the dwelling units facilitated by the Project analyzed in the DEIR would result in GHG emissions that exceed the SCAQMD threshold of significance. The Project

Page 54 of 55 ends

would exceed SCAQMD’s draft interim thresholds and therefore, the Project would generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to GHG emissions.

In addition, the Project would have a cumulatively considerable impact related to GHG emissions.

Impact PUB-1 and Cumulative: The Project would result in increased demand for public services.

Specifically, the increased demand for parks would be anticipated to result in a significant impact as the City is already at a deficit for parkland and does not currently meet its necessary acreage requirements adopted by the City. As the Project would result in increased population growth and therefore, increased demand for parks, the City would require development of additional parkland to meet its parks ratio requirements. However, the City does not have excess park and recreation land available to meet the forecast demand that would be generated by future developments facilitated by the Project and would result in significant impacts on parks. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure PUB-1, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to parks. In addition, the Project would have a cumulatively considerable impact related to parks.

Impact REC-1, Impact REC-2, and Cumulative: The Project would result in increased demand for parks and recreation facilities such that physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated and would require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which may have an adverse physical impact on the environment. Specifically, the increased demand for parks would be anticipated to result in a significant impact as the City is already at a deficit for parkland and does not currently meet its necessary acreage requirements adopted by the City. As the Project would result in increased population growth and therefore, increased demand for parks, the City would require development of additional parkland to meet its parks ratio requirements. However, the City does not have excess park and recreation land available to meet the forecast demand that would be generated by future developments facilitated by the Project and would result in significant impacts on parks. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure PUB-1, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to parks. In addition, the Project would have a cumulatively considerable impact related to parks.

Impact TRANS-2 and Cumulative: The Project would potentially result in inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 150334.3, subdivision(b) and would result in generation of VMT above its threshold of significance. Implementation of TDM measures through Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 could reduce a future project’s VMT; however, 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, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to transportation. In addition, the Project would have a cumulatively considerable impact related to transportation.

Statement of Overriding Considerations
The City after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations, which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the Project in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guideline Section 15093.

Page 55 of 55 ends

• The Project would encourage new housing for households at all income levels and for households with a range of diverse housing needs.
• The Project would 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 target of residential units projected by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the City. • The Project would remove undue constraints on new housing development, including for affordable housing development.
• The Project would affirmatively further fair housing in the City. • The Project would ensure that the City’s Housing Element and zoning provisions are consistent with requirements of State Housing law with respect to development of additional housing during the 2021-2029 planning cycle.

Conclusions
In conclusion, the City has identified and analyzed all potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project and has concluded that air quality impacts, GHG impacts, public services impacts, recreation impacts, and transportation impacts will remain unavoidable and adverse after all mitigation measures have been examined. The City has identified benefits that will result from implementation of the Project. The Project would allow for the City to comply with state law and meet its RHNA allocation requirements, encourage new housing for households at a variety of income levels and affordability, and as required by State law, would remove undue constraints on new housing development, and would affirmatively further fair housing. The City has sought to balance these substantial benefits against the significant and unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the Project. Given the substantial benefits that will accrue to the region from the implementation of the Project, the City finds that the Project’s identified benefits override the Project’s identified significant environmental impacts.

City of Seal Beach Housing Element and
Zoning Code Updates Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
August 19, 2025
Prepared for:

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

Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
2999 Oak Road, Suite 800
Walnut Creek, CA 94597

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
i

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CARB California Air Resources Board
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Seal Beach
EIR Environmental Impact Report
GHG greenhouse gas
Hp horsepower
HRER Historical Resource Evaluation Report
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PRC Public Resources Code
Project City of Seal Beach Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
VOC volatile organic compound
VMT vehicle miles traveled

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
1 1.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The purpose of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is to provide the City of Seal Beach (City) with a comprehensive list of the mitigation measures identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for City of Seal Beach’s proposed Housing Element and Zoning Code Updates Project (Project).

1.1 INTRODUCTION
The City is acting as the Lead Agency, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) section 21081.6, a Lead Agency that approves or carries out a project with potentially significant environmental effects shall adopt a “reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of a project approval to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” The CEQA Guidelines provide direction for clarifying and managing the complex relationships between a Lead Agency and other agencies with respect to implementing and monitoring mitigation measures. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15097(d), “each agency has the discretion to choose its own approach to monitoring or reporting; and each agency has its own special expertise.” This discretion will be exercised by implementing agencies at the time they consider any of the activities identified in the environmental document.

This MMRP is a working guide to facilitate both the implementation of the mitigation measures and the monitoring, compliance, and reporting activities by the City and any monitors it may designate. If the City adopts the EIR for the proposed project, it will adopt the MMRP.

1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
The MMRP is presented in the following table and includes the following components:
• The list of mitigation measures contained in the and EIR, as adopted by the City; • The party responsible for implementing the mitigation measure; • The timing for implementation of the mitigation measure; • The agency responsible for monitoring implementation of the mitigation measure; and • The monitoring action and frequency.

The City and its individual project applicants will be required to comply with this MMRP in all respects. In any instance where non-compliance occurs, the City-designated environmental monitors (the “monitoring party” listed in the MMRP) will issue a warning to the construction supervisor and notify the City’s Director of Community Development. Any decisions to halt work due to non-compliance will be made by the City.

The City’s designated environmental monitors will keep records of any incidents of non-compliance with mitigation measures. The MMRP will be maintained in the City’s files for use in construction and operation of the Project.

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
2 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of
Implementation
Monitoring Party and Monitoring
Action Monitoring Frequency
Verification of Implementation
Action
Date completed with
Signature
Draft EIR Section 3.2 – Air Quality
MM AQ-1: Quantify Construction Criteria Pollutant
Emissions. Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to CEQA review, project
applicants shall prepare and submit a technical air quality assessment estimating project construction-related criteria pollutant emissions to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) guidance. If
construction-related criteria pollutant emissions are
determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD
regional and localized thresholds of significance, emission reduction measures shall be incorporated into the project to the maximum extent feasible, subject to the discretion of the City. Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include:
• Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4
emission limits for engines above 50 horsepower.
• Require all paints and architectural coatings to be supercompliant volatile organic compounds (VOC) content (0 grams/Liter [g/L] to 10 g/L). If VOC emissions still exceed thresholds, then the applicant may elect to prohibit
architectural coating activities during summer months
(June, July, and August) when ozone formation peaks.

Regardless of the results of the emissions modeling, the following best practices shall be implemented throughout the duration of all construction activity:
• All off-road equipment operating at the construction site must be maintained in proper working condition according to manufacturers’ specifications.
• Idling shall be limited to 5 minutes or less in accordance with the Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleet Regulation as
required by California Air Resources Board (CARB).
• Clear Signage regarding idling restrictions shall be placed at the entrances to the construction site.
• Portable equipment over 50 horsepower must have either a valid SCAQMD Permit to Operate or a valid statewide
Portable Equipment Registration Program placard and
sticker issued by CARB.
• Water all active construction areas at least three times daily, or as often as needed to control dust emissions.

Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust
from leaving the site.
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose
materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between
the top of the load and the top of the trailer).
• Individual project
applicant
• Qualified air quality
specialist
Prior to discretionary
approval by the City for
each individual
development proposed
Monitoring Party:
• City of Seal Beach Community
Development Department
Monitoring Action:
• Confirm individual project applicant
has retained a qualified air quality
specialist
• Review and confirm assessment and
recommendations
Prior to discretionary
approval by the City for
each individual
development proposed

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
3 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of
Implementation
Monitoring Party and Monitoring
Action Monitoring Frequency
Verification of Implementation
Action
Date completed with
Signature
• Pave, apply water three times daily or as often as
necessary to control dust, or apply (non-toxic) soil
stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.

MM AQ-2: Quantify Operational Criteria Pollutant
Emissions. Prior to discretionary approval by the City for development projects subject to CEQA review, project
applicants shall prepare and submit a technical air quality assessment estimating project operational-related criteria pollutant emissions to the City for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in accordance with SCAQMD
guidance. If operational-related criteria pollutant emissions are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance, emission reduction measures shall be incorporated into the project to the maximum extent
feasible, subject to the discretion of the City. Acceptable options for reducing operational emissions may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Prohibition of natural gas hearths.
• Installation of solar water heaters or tankless water heaters.
• Exceeding Title 24 energy standards.
• Constructing Level 2 electric vehicle charging stations for multi-family developments and pre-wiring to allow for
Level 2 EV charging stations in single-family residential garages.
• Require all paints and architectural coatings to be supercompliant VOC content (0 to 10 g/L). • Individual project
applicant
• Qualified air quality
specialist
Prior to discretionary
approval by the City for
each individual
development proposed
Monitoring Party:
• City of Seal Beach Community
Development Department
Monitoring Action:
• Confirm individual project applicant
has retained a qualified air quality
specialist
• Review and confirm assessment and
recommendations
Prior to discretionary
approval by the City for
each individual
development proposed
MM AQ-3: Construction Health Risk Assessment. Prior to
future discretionary project approval for any future
development project that would involve construction lasting more than two months and within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, the project applicant shall submit a construction health risk assessment (HRA) to the City for review and approval. The level of detail required for the HRA is described below:

A quantitative health risk assessment shall be prepared in accordance with SCAQMD and Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment guidance to identify the potential for increased cancer and non-cancer health risks. If the health risks do not exceed the applicable thresholds, further
mitigation is not necessary. If the resultant health risks are determined to exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance, the applicant shall implement measures to reduce diesel particulate matter exhaust emissions and associated risks to below the applicable thresholds. Methods may include
requiring the use of off-road equipment engines that meet or exceed California Air Resources Board’s Tier 4 Final engine • Individual project
applicant
• Qualified air quality
specialist
Prior to discretionary
approval by the City and
prior to issuance of any
construction permits for
each individual
development proposed
Monitoring Party:
• City of Seal Beach Community
Development Department
Monitoring Action:
• Confirm individual project applicant
has retained a qualified air quality
specialist
• Review and confirm assessment and
recommendations
• Confirm construction plans
incorporate all applicable mitigation
measures identified in the HRA
Prior to discretionary
approval by the City and
issuance of any
construction permits for
each individual
development proposed

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
4 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of
Implementation
Monitoring Party and Monitoring
Action Monitoring Frequency
Verification of Implementation
Action
Date completed with
Signature
emissions standards for off-road equipment exceeding 50 horsepower (hp).

Any emissions reduction measures identified in the HRA shall be incorporated into the site development plan as a
component of the project. Prior to issuance of any
construction permit, the construction contractor shall ensure that all construction plans submitted to the Community
Development Department clearly show incorporation of all applicable mitigation measures.

Draft EIR Section 3.3 – Biological Resources
MM BIO-1: Documentation of Plant and Wildlife Species.

Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all projects must provide documentation that the site does not include specialstatus or protected plant and wildlife species. If the species are found on the site, focused surveys shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbance activities. The documentation shall ensure that botanical surveys are conducted during the appropriate blooming period and any nesting bird surveys are conducted during the appropriate avian nesting season. If no special-status species are found on the project site, no additional action is necessary and the project can continue. If special-status species are found, no ground disturbance can occur and the project must either avoid the special-status species, or develop a mitigation plan approved by the City in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). If offsite replacement is the only mitigation option available, the performance criteria shall be at a ratio specified by the resource agency such as the Army Corps of Engineers or the CDFW.
• Individual project
applicant
• Qualified biological
resources specialist
Prior to the issuance of a
building permit for each
individual development
proposed
Monitoring Party:
• City of Seal Beach Community
Development Department
Monitoring Action:
• Confirm individual project applicant
has retained a qualified biological
resources specialist
• Review and confirm documentation
Prior to the issuance of a
building permit for each
individual development
proposed
MM BIO-2: Mitigation Plan. Prior to the issuance of the first action and/or permit which would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit), a detailed mitigation plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist for approval by the City, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and CDFW which
shall include: (1) the responsibilities and qualifications of personnel to implement and supervise the plan; (2) site selection; (3) site preparation and planting implementation; (4) a schedule; (5) maintenance plan/guidelines; (6) a monitoring plan; and (7) long-term preservation requirements.
• Individual project
applicant
• Qualified biological
resources specialist
• USFWS
• CDFW
Prior to the issuance of
grading permit and start
of any ground disturbing
activity for each
individual development
proposed
Monitoring Party:
• City of Seal Beach Community
Development Department
Monitoring Action:
• Confirm individual project applicant
has retained a qualified biological
resources specialist
• Review and confirm the mitigation
plan
Prior to the issuance of
grading permit and during
construction as needed for
each individual
development proposed
MM BIO-3: Preconstruction Surveys. Prior to the issuance of the first action and/or permit which would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit) for future development projects facilitated by the Project, project applicants shall complete a preconstruction survey (or possibly multiple surveys) by a qualified biologist prior to construction activities to identify any active nesting locations within the project site. If the biologist does not find any active nests within the project site, the construction work shall be allowed to proceed. If the • Individual project
applicant
• Qualified biological
resources specialist
Prior to the issuance of
grading permit and start
of any ground disturbing
activity for each
individual development
proposed
Monitoring Party:
• City of Seal Beach Community
Development Department
• CDFW
Monitoring Action:
• Review and confirm preconstruction
surveys and any subsequent
monitoring
Prior to the issuance of
grading permit and during
construction as needed for
each individual
development proposed

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
5 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of
Implementation
Monitoring Party and Monitoring
Action Monitoring Frequency
Verification of Implementation
Action
Date completed with
Signature
biologist finds an active nest within the project site and determines that the nest may be impacted, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest, and the size of the buffer zone shall depend on the affected species and the type of construction activity. Any active nests observed during the survey shall be mapped on an aerial photograph. Only construction activities (if any) that have been approved by a biological monitor shall take place within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor when construction activities take place near active areas to ensure no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. Results of the preconstruction survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to CDFW and the City.

Draft EIR Section 3.4 – Cultural Resources
MM CUL-1: Development Review Process for Historical
Resources. Prior to approval of discretionary projects at any of the eight Housing Opportunity Sites or within the Main Street Program area, City staff shall determine whether the project applicant should conduct further study to assess the project’s potential impacts on historical resources. Further study is required if the project is located on the same parcel or within 100 feet of a known historical resource. Further study is also required if the project is located on the same parcel as a building, structure, or object 45 years old or older from the date the discretionary permit application was filed. If further study is necessary, the City shall require the project applicant to retain a qualified architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification
Standards in architectural history. The qualified consultant shall prepare a Historical Resource Evaluation Report
(HRER). The HRER should involve a California Historic
Resources Information System and California Built
Environment Resource Directory records search and
preparation of a historic context. If a building, structure, or object on the parcel is 45 years old or older and has not been previously identified as a historical resource, the consultant should prepare an evaluation for the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and local landmark eligibility per the National Park Service, California Office of Historic Preservation, and City guidelines.

All evaluated resources should be documented on
Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The qualified consultant should analyze potential project impacts and provide recommendations for avoiding or otherwise
mitigating potentially significant impacts to historical resources, which shall be enforced as conditions of approval for the project.
• City
• Individual project
applicant
• Qualified
architectural
historian
Prior to discretionary
approval by the City for
each individual
development proposed
Monitoring Party:
• City of Seal Beach Community
Development Department
Monitoring Action:
• Confirm individual project applicant
has retained a qualified architectural
historian
• Review and confirm HRER
• Confirm recommendations have been
incorporated into the project plans
Prior to discretionary
approval by the City and
throughout the construction
phase as needed for each
individual development
proposed

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
6 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of
Implementation
Monitoring Party and Monitoring
Action Monitoring Frequency
Verification of Implementation
Action
Date completed with
Signature
MM CUL-2: Development Review Process for
Archaeological Resources. Prior to approval of discretionary projects that include ground-disturbing activities, City staff shall conduct a records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center to review the current data on file for the project location. If it is determined that known archaeological cultural resources are within a 0.25-mile of the project site, the City shall require the project applicant to retain a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior’s
Professional Qualification Standards in archaeology to assess the project’s potential impacts to archaeological cultural resources. Further study may include a survey of the project location; controlled excavation to determine the presence of subsurface archaeological deposits; a review of relevant literature, including historical maps and published
archaeological and ethnographic sources; and consultation with local Native American tribes. The qualified archaeologist shall provide recommendations for avoiding or otherwise mitigating potentially significant impacts to archaeological cultural resources and human remains, which shall be
enforced as conditions of approval for the project.
• City
• Individual project
applicant
• Qualified
archaeologist
Prior to discretionary
approval by the City for
each individual
development proposed
Monitoring Party:
• City of Seal Beach Community
Development Department
Monitoring Action:
• Confirm and conduct a records
search at the South Central Coastal
Information Center
• Confirm individual project applicant
has retained a qualified archaeologist
and has prepared further study
• Confirm recommendations have been
incorporated into the project plans
Prior to discretionary
approval by the City and
throughout the construction
phase as needed for each
individual development
proposed
MM CUL-3: Human Remains. The City shall use the
development review process to identify human remains,
including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, and follow the appropriate procedures outlined under Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.98.

Should human remains be found on a project site, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains
shall be disturbed until the Orange County Coroner is
contacted and determines that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If an investigation is required, and the coroner determines the remains to be Native American then:
(1) the coroner would contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours; (2) the Native American
Heritage Commission would identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased native American; (3) the most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any
associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. • City
• Construction
contractor
• County Coroner
During the development
review process and
during construction for
each individual
development proposed
Monitoring Party:
• City of Seal Beach Community
Development Department
Monitoring Action:
• Confirm any known human remains
are identified prior to construction
• Confirm procedures outlined under
the Health and Safety Code of the
PRC are followed if remains are
found during construction
Prior to discretionary
approval by the City and
throughout the construction
phase as needed for each
individual development
proposed
Draft EIR Section 3.6 – Geology and Soils
MM GEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring Program. Prior to
the issuance of the first action and/or permit which would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit), a
paleontologist meeting professional standards as defined by Murphey et al. (2019) as a Principal Investigator shall be retained as the designated Project Paleontologist for each development, to review project-specific construction plans and • Individual project
applicant
• Qualified
paleontologist
Prior to issuance of
grading permit and
during construction for
each individual
development proposed
Monitoring Party:
• City of Seal Beach Community
Development Department
Monitoring Action:

Prior to issuance of grading
permit and throughout the
construction phase as
needed for each individual
development proposed

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
7 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of
Implementation
Monitoring Party and Monitoring
Action Monitoring Frequency
Verification of Implementation
Action
Date completed with
Signature
develop a project-specific paleontological mitigation program.

The mitigation program should be outlined in a
Paleontological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan tailored to specific construction plans and geotechnical studies, should these be available, that identifies when or under what
conditions paleontological monitoring should be implemented.

The plan should include:
• A Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program training
developed by the Project Paleontologist that
communicates requirements and procedures for the
inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources during construction to be delivered by the paleontologist or their designated representative to the construction crew prior to the onset of ground disturbance.
• Fulltime paleontological monitoring when work occurs in the geologic units assessed as having high
paleontological potential, which is expected to occur when work exceeds 5 foot in depth in unit 2 of the young
alluvium, or when work occurs at any depth in old shallow marine deposits on a wave-cut surface, the San Pedro
Formation, the Paleo Verdes Sand, the Lomita Marl, and
the Timms Point Silt. Work into previously disturbed
sediments, beach deposits, paralic estuarine deposits, or the upper 5 feet of unit 2 of the young alluvium does not require monitoring. After the initiation of the monitoring work, the Project Paleontologist may reduce the
frequency or depths of monitoring should low
paleontological potential sediments be identified in the monitoring area.
• Procedures to follow in the event that paleontological resources are encountered during construction activities, including work stoppage in a safe radius of the finds,
usually 50 feet, assessment by the Project Paleontologist, and, should the fossils be of scientific importance,
collection and curation in an accredited repository along with associated data such as photographs, GPS
coordinates, lithological descriptions, and depth data, as well as curation fees.
• A Paleontological Monitoring Report documenting the
results of the mitigation program.
• Review and approve paleontological
monitoring program
• Confirm mitigation program has been
incorporated into the project plans
• Confirm appropriate procedures are
followed in the event undiscovered
resources are encountered during
construction
Draft EIR Section 3.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
MM GHG-1: Implement GHG Reduction Measures. In
accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and
15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the City:
• City
• Individual project
applicant
Ongoing with each
individual development
proposed
Monitoring Party:
• City of Seal Beach Community
Development Department
Monitoring Action:
• Confirm individual project applicant
has incorporated GHG reduction
measures into the project plans
Ongoing with each
individual development
proposed

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
8 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of
Implementation
Monitoring Party and Monitoring
Action Monitoring Frequency
Verification of Implementation
Action
Date completed with
Signature
a) Integrate green building measures consistent with
CALGreen (California Building Code Title 24), local
building codes and other applicable laws, into project
design including:
o Use energy efficient materials in building design,
construction, rehabilitation, and retrofit.
o Install energy-efficient lighting, heating, and cooling systems (cogeneration); water heaters; appliances;
equipment; and control systems.
o Reduce lighting, heating, and cooling needs by taking advantage of light-colored roofs, trees for shade, and
sunlight.
o Incorporate passive environmental control systems
that account for the characteristics of the natural
environment.
o Use high-efficiency lighting and cooking devices.
o Incorporate passive solar design.
o Use high-reflectivity building materials and multiple glazing.
o Prohibit gas-powered landscape maintenance
equipment.
o Install electric vehicle charging stations.
o Reduce wood burning stoves or fireplaces.
o Provide bike lanes accessibility and parking at
residential developments.
b) Include offsite measures to mitigate a project’s emissions. c) Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology during design, construction, and
operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions,
including but not limited to:
o Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment; o Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission
technologies;
o Use lighting systems that are energy efficient, such as LED technology;
o Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting
construction materials;
o Use cement blended with the maximum feasible
amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG
emissions from cement production;
o Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG
emissions from solid waste management through
encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse;
o Incorporate design measures to reduce energy
consumption and increase use of renewable energy;

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
9 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of
Implementation
Monitoring Party and Monitoring
Action Monitoring Frequency
Verification of Implementation
Action
Date completed with
Signature
o Incorporate design measures to reduce water
consumption;
o Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible;
o Recycle construction debris to maximum extent
feasible;
o Plant shade trees in or near construction projects
where feasible; and
o Solicit bids that include concepts listed above.
d) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bikeshare and car-share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the
following:
o Promote transit-active transportation coordinated
strategies;
o Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles;
o Improve or increase access to transit;
o Increase access to common goods and services,
such as groceries, schools, and day care;
o Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle
network;
o Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities;
o Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit
service;
o Provide traffic calming measures;
o Provide bicycle parking;
o Limit or eliminate park supply;
o Unbundle parking costs;
o Provide parking cash-out programs;
o Implement or provide access to commute reduction
program;
e) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing
amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the
regional network;
f) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by
incentives for construction of transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and
g) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high occupancy vehicles, and provide
adequate passenger loading and unloading for those
vehicles;

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
10 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of
Implementation
Monitoring Party and Monitoring
Action Monitoring Frequency
Verification of Implementation
Action
Date completed with
Signature
h) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG
emissions, including:
o Retaining onsite mature trees and vegetation, and
planting new canopy trees;
o Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage
use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the
carbon content of fuels, including constructing or
encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging
stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or
charging for electric bicycles; and
o Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste
management through encouraging solid waste
recycling and reuse.

Refer to Mitigation Measures AQ-1: Quantify Construction Criteria Pollutant, AQ-2: Quantify Operational Criteria Pollutant, and AQ-3: Construction Health Risk Assessment, in Draft EIR Section 3.2, Air Quality.

Draft EIR Section 3.9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
MM HYD-1: Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure. Future
development projects facilitated by the Housing Element and Zoning Code Update shall be required to prepare a sitespecific evaluation to determine the potential impacts the proposed development project could have on the existing deficiencies to the City’s storm drainage system and provide onsite mitigation measures to resolve impacts to the City’s storm drain infrastructure. If it is found that using onsite mitigation measures do not resolve all impacts consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, then it shall be required to fund improvements to the storm drainage system as a
condition of approval for the proposed development. The requirement for contribution to funding improvements and the anticipated cost shall be analyzed at the time of projectspecific environmental analysis. • Individual project
applicant
During project design for
each individual
development proposed
Monitoring Party:
• City of Seal Beach Community
Development Department
Monitoring Action:
• Confirm a site-specific evaluation has
been prepared and review evaluation
• Confirm sufficient onsite mitigation
measures have been implemented
• Calculate required contribution to
funding improvements
Once during design review
phase for each individual
development proposed
Draft EIR Section 3.11 - Noise
MM NOI-1: Noise Mitigation Plan. Project applicants shall describe and commit to a mitigation plan that will be
developed when the information is available to make final decisions on all specific mitigation measures. The objective of the plan should be to minimize construction using all
reasonable (e.g., cost vs. benefit) and feasible (e.g., possible to construct) means available. Components of a mitigation plan may include some or all of the following provisions, which should also be specified in construction contracts.
• During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the
best-available noise control techniques available. (e.g., mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers,
ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating
shields or shrouds).
• Individual project
applicant
• Construction
contractor
Prior to and during
construction for each
individual development
proposed
Monitoring Party:
• City of Seal Beach Community
Development Department
Monitoring Action:
• Confirm a mitigation plan has been
prepared and review and approve
plan
• Confirm requirements are
implemented prior to and during
construction
Throughout the
construction phase as
needed for each individual
development proposed

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
11 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of
Implementation
Monitoring Party and Monitoring
Action Monitoring Frequency
Verification of Implementation
Action
Date completed with
Signature
• Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible.

Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an
exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be
used along with external noise jackets on the tools.
• Stationary equipment, such as generators and air
compressors shall be located as far as possible from
nearby noise-sensitive uses.
• Stockpiling shall be located as far as possible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
• Construction traffic shall be limited to approved haul routes established by the City.
• Construct noise barriers, such as temporary walls or piles of excavated material, between noisy activities and noisesensitive receptors. • Combine noisy operations to occur in the same time
period. The total noise level produced will not be
substantially greater than the level produced if the
operations were performed separately.
• At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted
construction days and hours, as well as the telephone
numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized
representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized
contractor’s representative receives a complaint, they
shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.
• Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the onsite construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
• During the entire active construction period, the use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms,
which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws.

MM NOI-2: Noise and Vibration Analysis. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project requiring pile driving during construction within 135 feet from fragile structures, such as historical resources, 75 feet from older residential structures, of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings), or within 55 feet of new residential or • Individual project
applicant
• Construction
contractor
Prior to issuance of a
building permit and
during construction for
each individual
development proposed
Monitoring Party:
• City of Seal Beach Community
Development Department
Monitoring Action:

Prior to issuance of a
building permit for each
individual development
proposed and throughout
the construction phase as
needed

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
12 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of
Implementation
Monitoring Party and Monitoring
Action Monitoring Frequency
Verification of Implementation
Action
Date completed with
Signature
commercial buildings; or a vibratory roller within 25 feet of any structure, the project applicant shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. A qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer shall conduct this noise and vibration analysis. The vibration levels shall not exceed the Caltrans damage thresholds listed in the table in Section 3.11, Noise, under MM NOI-2 of the Draft EIR. If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving and static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers shall be used. If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be
conducted to ensure vibration thresholds are not exceeded. • Qualified acoustical
consultant
• Confirm a noise and vibration
analysis has been prepared and
review and approve
• Confirm impacts have been mitigated
to the extent feasible
Draft EIR Section 3.13 – Public Services
MM PUB-1: Parks and Recreation. Subsequent
environmental review at a project specific level shall be required for individual development projects facilitated by the Housing Element Update and Zone Code Update. The
environmental analysis shall include an analysis of the proposed project’s contribution to potential impacts to parks and recreation facilities, and potential impacts resulting from implementation of individual development projects under the Housing Element Update and Zone Code Update shall be
mitigated to the extent feasible. The proposed project’s required contribution to the City related to parkland dedication and payment of required fees as required by Municipal Code Section 10.50.010, Parkland Dedication and Fees, shall be determined at the time of subsequent environmental review at a project specific level.
• Individual project
applicant
During environmental
review at a project
specific level
Monitoring Party:
• City of Seal Beach Community
Development Department
Monitoring Action:
• Confirm environmental review at a
project specific level has been
completed
• Confirm impacts have been mitigated
to the extent feasible
• Determine appropriate parkland
dedication and fees
During environmental
review for each individual
development proposed
Draft EIR Section 3.14 - Recreation
Refer to Mitigation Measure PUB-1: Parks and Recreation in Draft EIR Section 3.13, Public Services.

Draft EIR Section 3.15 - Transportation
MM TRANS-1: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis. Individual projects that do not screen out from Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis shall provide a quantitative VMT analysis consistent with the methodology in the City of Seal Beach Transportation Analysis Guidelines. As described in the Guidelines, Projects which result in a significant impact shall provide VMT mitigation, which could consist of, but not be limited to, the following:
• Modify the project’s characteristics to reduce VMT
generated by the project. This might involve changing the density or mixture of land uses on the project site or
changing the project’s location to one that is more
accessible by transit or other travel modes.
• Implement Transportation Demand Management
measures to reduce VMT generated by the Project.
• Individual project
applicant
During environmental
review at a project
specific level
Monitoring Party:
• City of Seal Beach Community
Development Department
Monitoring Action:
• Review and confirm quantitative VMT
analysis has been completed
• Confirm impacts have been mitigated
to the extent feasible
During environmental
review for each individual
development proposed

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
13 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of
Implementation
Monitoring Party and Monitoring
Action Monitoring Frequency
Verification of Implementation
Action
Date completed with
Signature
• Provision of offsite infrastructure improvements including roadway improvements for active transportation and
multimodal infrastructure, or offsite multimodal
improvements.

Draft EIR Section 3.16 – Tribal Cultural Resources
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 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 Assembly Bill 52, Senate Bill 18, and CEQA requirements.
• Individual project
applicant
• City
During environmental
review at a project
specific level
Monitoring Party:
• City of Seal Beach Community
Development Department
Monitoring Action:
• Confirm consultation with the
appropriate tribal group in
conformance with Assembly Bill 52,
Senate Bill 18, and CEQA
requirements have been completed
During environmental
review for each individual
development proposed
MM TCR-2: Inadvertent Discoveries. In the event that
additional significant site(s) or resource(s) not identified as significant in a project environmental review process, but are later determined to be significant, are located within a project impact area, such sites shall be subjected to further
archaeological and cultural significance evaluation by the project applicant, lead agency, and the applicable tribe(s) to determine if additional mitigation measures are necessary to treat sites in a culturally appropriate manner consistent with CEQA 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.
• Individual project
applicant
• Construction
contractor
During construction for
each individual
development proposed
Monitoring Party:
• City of Seal Beach Community
Development Department
Monitoring Action:
• Confirm further archaeological and
cultural significance evaluation has
been conducted and determine if
additional mitigation measures are
necessary
During the construction
phase as needed for each
individual development
proposed
Draft EIR Section 3.17 – Utilities and Service Systems
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. • Individual project
applicant
During site development
for individual
development proposed
and prior to building
permit issuance
Monitoring Party:
• City of Seal Beach Community
Development Department
Monitoring Action:
• Confirm supplemental evaluation has
been prepared
• Confirm the proposed development
mitigated its proportionate impacts by
way of fair share/in-lieu fee
payments, or other alternative
financing arrangements that would
mitigate its impacts
• Confirm payment of required fees
have been completed
During site development for
individual development
proposed and prior to
building permit issuance

CITY OF SEAL BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT AND ZONING CODE UPDATES PROJECT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
14 Mitigation Measures Implementation Party Timing of
Implementation
Monitoring Party and Monitoring
Action Monitoring Frequency
Verification of Implementation
Action
Date completed with
Signature
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.

AGENDA STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 27, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: Patrick Gallegos, City Manager
FROM: Iris Lee, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Awarding and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Professional Maintenance Services Agreements with
Arizona Pipeline Company and PaveWest, LLC for On-Call
Emergency and Unexpected Task Pavement Maintenance
and Repair Services
________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST:

That the City Council adopt Resolution 7708:

1. Approving and awarding a professional services agreement with Arizona Pipeline Company, for an original term of three (3) years in the not-toexceed amount of $400,000 to provide On-Call Emergency and Unexpected Task Pavement Maintenance and Repair Services; and,

2. Approving and awarding a professional services agreement with PaveWest, LLC, for an original term of three (3) years in the not-to-exceed amount of $400,000 to provide On-Call Emergency and Unexpected Task Pavement Maintenance and Repair Services; and,

3. Authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute the Agreements; and,

4. Authorizing the City Manager the option to extend any or all of the Agreements up to two (2) additional one-year terms after its original term for a not-to-exceed amount of $150,000 per additional term; and,

5. Rejecting all other proposals.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:

The City owns and maintains approximately 41.8 centerline miles of pavement that range from smaller local streets to larger arterials as designated on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (OC MPAH). Per the 2020, 2022, and 2024 Pavement Management Plans, the pavement condition index (PCI) ratings

Page 2 ends

Seal Beach City CouncilOctober 27, 2025

Seal Beach City Council
October 27, 2025